BVA9504197 DOCKET NO. 94-04 227 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES The Board construes the issues to be: 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder, and cysts on the groin and buttocks. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen claims of entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder, a right shoulder disorder, a scrotal abscess and a psychiatric disorder. 3. Entitlement to compensable evaluations for hemorrhoids and an ingrown toenail of the right foot. 4. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a left knee disorder, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.P. Reep, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1971 to April 1974. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a June 1992 rating decision of the St. Petersburg, Florida Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied service connection for a right shoulder disorder, a right knee disorder, cysts on the groin and buttocks, and scrotal abscess. Also in that decision, the RO declined to reopen the veteran's claims for service connection for a left shoulder disorder and a psychiatric disorder. The RO also continued a 10 percent rating for the veteran's service connected left knee disorder, and denied compensable ratings for hemorrhoids and an ingrown toenail of the right foot. In October 1992, at the request of the veteran, the RO granted the veteran a 365-day extension on his appeal. In February 1994, the veteran testified before a travel section of the Board, sitting at St. Petersburg, Florida. At the hearing, the veteran submitted additional documentary evidence, accompanied by a written waiver of RO review of that evidence. We note that the RO characterized the issues regarding the right shoulder disorder and scrotal abscess as if they were original claims. However, service connection for a right shoulder disorder was denied in a November 1974 rating decision. Service connection for scrotal abscess was denied in a July 1975 rating decision. Notice was promptly issued following both decisions, and the veteran did not file a timely appeal with regard to either issue. Therefore, we construe the issues regarding those two claims to be as follows: whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen claims for service connection for a right shoulder disorder and for scrotal abscess. In his substantive appeal of September 1993 the veteran has raised other matters which have not been developed for appellate review, are not "inextricably intertwined with those issues developed and, therefore, will not be addressed herein. These include service connection for a back disorder, residuals of venereal disease, respiratory disorder, and left leg length shortening. In addition he has made comments which the Board construes as a claim for a permanent and total disability rating for nonservice-connected pension benefits. These matters are referred to the attention of the RO for appropriate action. REMAND The veteran seeks, among other things, an increased evaluation for a left knee disorder, and compensable evaluations for hemorrhoids and an ingrown toenail. Unfortunately, there is no contemporaneous VA examination on file to adequately assess the severity of those disabilities. At the veteran's February 1994 hearing, his representative requested remand for the purpose of conducting a proper VA examination to evaluate his service- connected disabilities. In his substantive appeal, the veteran maintains that, during service, he sought military medical treatment for various disorders, most of which are at issue in this appeal. A 1974 RO request for the veteran's service medical records yielded only several dental records and the report of an April 1974 separation examination. The report of the separation examination indicates, among other things, that the veteran received psychiatric treatment in service. Although the veteran submitted additional service medical records, there are no service medical records on file which reflect psychiatric treatment. In light of the foregoing, it appears that service medical records of potential importance are not yet of record. They should be obtained. At his February 1994 hearing, the veteran testified that he received psychiatric treatment while incarcerated. The record contains numerous treatment records, dated from 1989 to 1992, from the Madison Correctional Institute in Florida. Several of those records contain entries which note "seen in mental health," but no substantive documentation of such psychiatric treatment is on file. The record contains numerous postservice medical records dated from 1974 to 1993. The record also contains several statements by the veteran which suggest the existence of relevant medical evidence that may not be of record. The veteran testified that, in 1976 or 1977, he received psychiatric treatment at the VA facility in Dayton, Ohio. The file contains psychiatric treatment records from the Dayton, Ohio facility that are dated as early as 1980, but none that are dated in 1976 or 1977. On the report of a May 1976 VA examination, the veteran claimed to have received treatment for his shoulders at the University VA clinic in Columbus, Ohio, in 1976. The file contains treatment records from the Ohio State University Hospital, which contain notations, dated in 1976, regarding shoulder treatment. Other notations in those records indicate "VA screening." These may reflect the "University VA clinic" treatment to which the veteran was referring. In addition, the veteran has testified that, in 1978, he submitted documentation from Dr. DeBoo, which indicated that the veteran required surgery on his left shoulder. On the report of a July 1978 VA examination, the veteran noted that Dr. DeBoo had treated his left knee and right shoulder in November 1977. The only report of Dr. DeBoo on file is dated in June 1978, and refers to the knee, but not the shoulder. These matters must be clarified by the veteran. In light of the need for clarification, we would also note that the veteran testified that, in the summer of 1976, he received psychiatric treatment at the VA facility in Chillicothe, Ohio. On the report of an August 1976 VA examination, the veteran claimed to have received treatment for psychiatric and shoulder problems, from July 1974 to July 1976, at a VA outpatient facility in Columbus, Ohio. On the report of a July 1978 VA examination, the veteran claimed to have received treatment for his shoulder, in November 1977, at Mercy Medical Hospital, Springfield, Ohio. No records reflecting the foregoing treatment appear to be on file. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should request that the veteran provide a list of any and all VA and non-VA facilities where he received pertinent medical treatment at any time after discharge from active service for any of the disorders at issue. In addition to the names of the facilities, the list should also include addresses and dates of treatment, as well as the specific disability for which treatment was received. Further, the veteran should be requested to provide copies of any service medical records which may be in his possession. If the veteran provides information which signals the existence of pertinent records that are not currently on file, the RO should attempt to obtain those records. Any records so obtained should be added to the claims folder. 2. Regardless of whether the veteran provides any information requested in paragraph one, the RO should initiate a thorough search for any and all of the veteran's service medical records. If these records cannot be located, or are unavailable for any reason, a report should be made for inclusion in the claims folder, containing an explanation as to what steps were taken to locate the records and why additional service medical records are unavailable. 3. The RO should also attempt to obtain records reflecting 1976 psychiatric treatment at the Chillicothe VA facility, 1976-77 psychiatric treatment at the Dayton VA facility, 1974-76 psychiatric and shoulder treatment at the Columbus, Ohio VA facility, and any up-to-date records of the Orlando VA outpatient clinic. The RO should also attempt to obtain all treatment records from the Madison Correctional Institute, State of Florida, especially those regarding psychiatric treatment. Any records so obtained should be added to the claims folder. 4. The RO should then arrange a comprehensive physical examination for the purpose of assessing the presence and severity of any and all of the veteran's disabilities. Before conducting the examination, the physician shall carefully review the veteran's claims folder. All appropriate testing should be conducted; the results reported. 5. The RO should then again consider the veteran's claims, to include the issue of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for a right shoulder disorder and scrotal abscess. If any of the benefits sought on appeal remains denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case which contains an explanation of the RO's latest deliberations, and they should be afforded the opportunity to respond. Then the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. The veteran need take no action until he is further notified by the RO. The purpose of this remand is to procure additional evidence. N. R. ROBIN 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).