BVA9501356 DOCKET NO. 93-12 372 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Julia M. Kurtz, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from March 1968 to March 1970. This appeal arises from a March 1992 rating decision of the New Orleans, Louisiana, Regional Office (RO) which established service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder and assigned a 10 percent evaluation, effective from October 24, 1991. The veteran testified before a hearing officer at the RO in August 1992. In May 1992, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for alcohol abuse as secondary to the veteran's service connected post-traumatic stress disorder. In his substantive appeal received in July 1992, the veteran stated that his alcohol problems are a direct result of his experience in Vietnam and that his service-connected condition is a direct factor in his dependence on alcohol. He reiterated these statements at his hearing in August 1992. Initially, the Board construes the veteran's statements as a notice of disagreement to the RO's May 1992 denial of service connection for alcoholism as secondary to his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. Any determination as to the issue of service connection for alcoholism would impact upon the ultimate resolution of the veteran's entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. In light of this fact, the Board finds that the issue of service connection for alcoholism as secondary to his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder is inextricably intertwined with the certified issue of an increased disability evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder. Therefore, the veteran's entitlement to service connection for alcoholism as secondary to his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder must be formally adjudicated prior to appellate consideration of the instant case. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991) The VA has the duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing available facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining adequate VA examinations. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). This includes an examination which includes an opinion on what effect the veteran's service- connected disorder has on his ability to work. Friscia v. Brown, No. 93-766 (U.S. Vet.App. Dec. 21, 1994). In his October 1993 informal hearing presentation, the veteran's representative contended that the December 1991 VA psychiatric examination was inadequate and requests a remand. The Board notes that the examination does not contain a diagnosis based upon a DSM-III-R multiaxial evaluation nor an opinion as to relationship between the veteran's post-traumatic stress disorder and ability to work. While we regret the delays in reaching a final decision imposed by remanding this case, such action is found to be appropriate in view of the issues on appeal, our efforts to comply with continually evolving doctrine as set forth by the Court, and in consideration of the representative's request for a remand. In light of the foregoing, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should schedule the veteran for a psychiatric examination to determine the nature and extent of his post-traumatic stress disorder. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review prior to examination. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the Physician's Guide to Disability Evaluation Examinations and DSM- III-R multiaxial evaluations. The report of examination should include a detailed description of all clinical manifestations. The examiner should express an opinion as to the effect of the veteran's post- traumatic stress disorder upon the veteran's ability to be employed. An opinion should also be expressed, to include underlying reasoning, regarding the question of whether the veteran's alcoholism can reasonably be related to his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. It is also requested that the examiner assign a Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score. 2. When the requested development has been completed, the RO should reconsider the issue on appeal, including the issue of service connection for alcoholism as secondary to the veteran's service- connected post-traumatic stress disorder. If his claim continues to be denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case, to include the issue of service connection for alcoholism as secondary to service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder, and afforded a reasonable period of time within which to respond thereto. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional evidence and afford due process of law to the veteran. No inference should be drawn herefrom regarding the final disposition of this claim. JEFF MARTIN 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) (1993).