BVA9509364 DOCKET NO. 93-15 772 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D.W. Singleton, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1942 to October 1945. This appeal arises from a rating decision dated in December 1992 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. REMAND Service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) requires medical evidence establishing a clear diagnosis of the condition, credible supporting evidence that the claimed inservice stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptomatology and the claimed inservice stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (1994). In this regard, the veteran's Enlisted Record and Report of Separation reflect that he was a tank retriever operator with Company B, 128th Armored Ordnance Maintenance Battalion, and that he was involved in the Battles of Normandy, Northern France, the Ardennes, the Rhineland, and Central Europe. In a November 1992 statement, the veteran reported combat experience in which three of his service buddies were killed during action in a battle at Brittany, France. The service comrades were identified as a Lieutenant S.M. Young, Jr., a Corporal Quinton Ducet, and an Anthony V. Mastroionni. Similar events were alleged by the veteran in his substantive appeal including allegations pertaining to claimed duties as a part of an infantry unit responsible for retrieving tanks while engaged in combat with the enemy. In light of this evidence, and because it does not appear that the RO has taken steps any to verify the veteran's alleged stressors through the United States Army and Environmental Support Group (ESG), the Board finds that further development is warranted. In this regard, the provisions of VA ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL M21-1 (MANUAL M21- 1) pertaining to the adjudication of PTSD provide that, “where records available to the rating board do not provide objective or supportive evidence of the alleged inservice traumatic stressor, it is necessary to develop this evidence.” Manual M21-1, Part VI, 7.46(f)(2) (emphasis added). Accordingly, as the development outlined in MANUAL M21-1 includes providing the stressor information to the ESG in an attempt to verify the claimed stressors, such development is mandatory. The Board next observes that the veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD on at least one occasion by the VA. That diagnosis, however, appears to have been based on a history which has yet to be verified. As an examination based on a questionable history is inadequate for rating purposes, West v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 70, 78 (1994), it is necessary that the veteran be provided an examination where the examiner has an accurate history of the veteran's military service. Therefore, further development is warranted. Finally, the Board notes the veteran's service personnel records, including his "201 file," have not been secured and associated with his claims file for purposes of verifying his alleged stressors. Accordingly, these records should be obtained for the Board's review and the medical examiner's consideration. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363, 372-73 (1992). Therefore, this case is REMANDED for the following action. 1. The NPRC should be requested to provide photocopies of the veteran's service personnel records, to include his "201 file." 2. The RO should request that the veteran provide additional information containing specific details of the claimed stressful events during service. This information must include dates, places, detailed descriptions, units of service, duty assignments, as well as the names, ranks, units of assignment and any other identifying information concerning any other individual involved in any claimed stressful event. The veteran is hereby notified that the United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that asking the veteran to provide underlying facts, i.e., the names, dates, and places of the claimed events, does not constitute either an impossible or onerous task. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 193 (1991). 3. After obtaining the forgoing requested information, the RO should forward it to the United States Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group, 7798 Cissna Road, Springfield, Virginia 22150, and attempt to verify the veteran’s claimed stressors. The ESG’s review is requested to include a search for any information pertaining to the deaths of Lieutenant S.M. Young, Jr., Corporal Quinton Ducet, and an Anthony V. Mastroionni purportedly at Brittany, France, including their unit of assignment at the time of their deaths. Any information obtained is to be associated with the claims folder. 4. Following the receipt of the ESG’s report, and the completion of any additional development warranted or suggested by that office, the RO should prepare a report detailing the nature of any combat action, or inservice stressful event, verified by the ESG. If no combat or stressor has been verified, the RO should so state in their report. This report is then to be added to the claims folder. 5. Then, and only then, should the RO schedule the veteran for a VA psychiatric examination by a psychiatrist who has not previously seen or treated the veteran. This examination is to be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations in order to determine the nature and extent of any psychiatric disorder which may be present. All indicated studies, including post-traumatic stress disorders sub scales, are to be performed. The claims file must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner prior to conducting this examination. In determining whether or not the veteran has PTSD due to an inservice stressor the examiner is hereby notified that only the verified history detailed in the reports provided by the ESG and/or the RO may be relied upon. If the examiner believes that PTSD is the appropriate diagnosis the examiner must specifically identify which stressor detailed in the ESG’s and/or the RO's report is responsible for that conclusion. Any and all opinions expressed must be accompanied by a complete rationale. 6. Following the completion of the foregoing the RO should review the claims file to ensure that all of the foregoing development has been completed in full. In particular, the RO should review the VA psychiatric examination report to verify that any diagnosis of PTSD was based on the verified history provided by the ESG and/or the RO. If the examiner relied upon a history which is not verified, that examination report must be returned as inadequate for rating purposes. The Board emphasizes that the Court has held that a diagnosis of PTSD, related to service, which is based on an examination which relied upon an unverified history is inadequate. West, 7 Vet.App. at 77. 7. After undertaking any additional development deemed appropriate, the RO should readjudicate the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. If the benefit requested on appeal is not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the RO must issue a supplemental statement of the case. A reasonable period of time for a response should then be afforded. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for final appellate review, if otherwise in order. By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the RO. DEREK R. BROWN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. 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) (1994).