BVA9400526 DOCKET NO. 92-17 497 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral defective hearing. 2. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. 4. Entitlement to service connection for an ankle disorder. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a leg disorder. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a pulmonary disorder. 7. Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for post- traumatic stress disorder, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 8. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) disability evaluation for postoperative pterygium. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Gottfried, Counse INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1942 to October 1946. This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the Board) on appeal from rating decisions from the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) New Orleans, Louisiana, Regional Office (hereinafter RO). The RO granted service connection for post- traumatic stress disorder and assigned a ten percent disability evaluation in a rating decision of June 1991. The notice of disagreement was received in July 1991. The RO denied an increase in the 10 percent evaluation assigned for post-traumatic stress disorder in a rating decision of January 1992. At that time, the RO granted service connection for pterygium, assigning a noncompensable disability evaluation, and denied service connection for the other disorders at issue. A notice of disagreement was received in February 1992. The RO continued to deny the hearing loss and eye claims in a rating decision of August 1992. A statement of the case was issued in September 1992. The veteran's substantive appeal was received in September 1992. The case was received and docketed at the Board in September 1992. The veteran has been represented throughout his appeal by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. That organization submitted additional written argument to the Board in April 1993. REMAND The record, to include the February 1992 notice of disagreement, shows that the veteran has been claiming that his bilateral eye disorders, to include defective vision, are secondary to his service-connected postoperative pterygium. This issue is inextricably intertwined with the increased rating issue pertaining to pterygium. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991). This matter needs to be addressed in the RO. After reviewing the record, including information relating to the severity of the veteran's psychiatric problems and related employment difficulties, supplied by a physician in a statement of June 1992, the Board believes that, since the case will be in remand status, an up- to-date examination in relation to the post-traumatic stress disorder claim may be useful, and that all treatment records that may be available in relation to the veteran's compensation claims should be secured. This evidence may be useful in adjudication of the veteran's claims. The Board is mindful of the VA's duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing available facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining medical records from any source and obtaining adequate VA examinations. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). This includes additional VA examination by a specialist, when recommended. Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991). The only service medical record in the claims file is a separation examination report. This matter needs to be addressed in the RO. Under the circumstances of this case, the Board is of the opinion that additional assistance is required. The case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. Efforts should be made to obtain all available service medical records or copies thereof in accordance with VA Manual M21-1. All records obtained should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The veteran should be contacted and the record reviewed in order to ensure that all sources of treatment during the 1990's have been clearly identified. This should include names, addresses and dates. Thereafter, if necessary, the veteran should be asked to sign appropriate forms giving his consent for release of the records to the VA. Thereafter, verbatim copies of all treatment records, to include any records of ongoing treatment from the VA should be secured. All records not already associated with the claims folder should be associated with the folder. 3. After all of the development requested above is completed, the veteran should be scheduled for an examination by a psychiatrist in order to determine the severity of all disorders present, to include the service- connected post-traumatic stress disorder. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner. The examiner should be asked to review the record and interview the veteran in order to compile and report a complete history to assist in the examination. The examiner should be requested to place the veteran on the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale provided in American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (3d ed. rev. 1987). After all of the development has been completed, the RO should review the issues, including the inextricably intertwined issue of entitlement to service connection for eye disorders claimed to be secondary to service-connected pterygium. All currently applicable legal authority, including relevant laws and regulations should be addressed. This should include consideration of the increased rating issues in accordance with Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991) which discusses a need to review the veteran's medical history and consider relevant sections of 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4 in increased rating cases. After the issues are reviewed, the veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case that fully addresses all currently applicable legal authority, and includes a full discussion for all action taken. They should then be granted a reasonable opportunity to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further appellate review. The purpose of this remand is to procure additional clarifying information and to ensure that all issues are fully addressed. No action is required of the veteran until he receives further notice BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 * HARRY M. McALLISTER, M.D. J. U. JOHNSON *38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (West 1991) permits a Board of Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business without awaiting assignment of an additional member to the Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section proceed with the transaction of business, including the issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a third Member. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1992).