BVA9505419 DOCKET NO. 93-14 936 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for bursitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a stomach disorder. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard E. Coppola, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1956 to January 1959. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of January 1992 from the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for bursitis, a psychiatric disorder and a stomach disorder. REMAND In his August 1991 application for compensation, the veteran listed that he was treated for the claimed disabilities during active service in 1959 at Fort Lewis, Washington. The evidence discloses that the RO requested all available records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC); however, a December 1991 response from that facility indicates that the veteran's service records apparently were destroyed by fire in 1973. That response also indicates that records of treatment from Fort Lewis, Washington, were not available and the veteran's clinical records could not be reconstructed. In his application, the veteran reported post-service treatment for nerves and bursitis in 1960 by Pedro Ortiz Santiago, M.D., P.O. Box 101, Toa Alta, Puerto Rico, 00758, and in 1990 by Angel Rivera, M.D., currently located at the Instituto Medicina de Familia, Calle Palmer, Toa Alta, Puerto Rico, 00758. A December 1991 statement from Dr. Santiago shows that he treated the veteran for a urinary tract infection in July 1989, and deltoid bursitis of the left and right shoulders in February and March 1991, respectively. A December 1991 statement from the Instituto Medicina de Familia indicates that the veteran was treated for bursitis by Dr. Luis Rivera in June 1985 and November 1988, and for left arm and lumbar pain by Noel A. Badillo, M.D., in April 1989. That statement also notes that there were no other records or dates of treatment for any other conditions at that facility. In June 1992, the RO denied service connection for the claimed disabilities, in part, based on the lack of medical treatment within the initial post-service year and the lack of medical evidence supporting a showing of continuity of symptomatology. In the substantive appeal, the veteran stated that he was treated for a stomach disorder and a psychiatric condition from 1960 to 1965 by Dr. Lambox, located in Toa Alta, Puerto Rico. He again reported treatment for bursitis, a stomach disorder and a psychiatric condition from 1965 to 1984 or 1985 by Dr. Rivera. It appears that the RO did not attempt to obtain the claimed treatment records from Dr. Lambox. It is also unclear whether the veteran was referring to treatment by a physician other than Dr. Luis Rivera of the Instituto Medicina de Familia or whether Dr. Rivera's records dated prior to 1985 are not located at that facility. It is difficult to ascertain from that facility's December 1991 statement since it was issued by a physician at that facility who had not treated the veteran. The Board notes that this is not a case where the service records are available but fail to reveal treatment for the claimed disabilities. In the present case, the veteran's service medical records are unavailable. Consequently, the veteran must find support for his service connection claims with the use of post- service evidence. He claims that he was treated for the disabilities at issue beginning in the initial post-service year until 1991. Under these particular circumstances, the Board finds that additional development of the evidence is warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The veteran should specifically identify the names, addresses and dates of treatment for any medical care providers, VA or otherwise, who have treated him for the claimed disabilities since separation from active duty, including "Dr. Lambox" whom the veteran referred to in the substantive appeal. The veteran should indicate whether Dr. Luis Rivera of the Instituto Medicina de Familia is the physician from whom he received treatment for the claimed disabilities prior to 1985, and, if so, whether treatment records may be located at another facility. If he received treatment from a different Dr. Rivera prior to 1985, he should specify the full name and address of that physician. After obtaining any needed authorization from the veteran, the RO should obtain copies of all these records. The RO should undertake any other necessary development to ensure that all claimed post-service treatment records are properly requested or obtained. 2. The RO should then review the case, and any issues on appeal should be adjudicated. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran, he should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case which summarizes the pertinent evidence, fully cites the applicable legal provisions not previously provided, and reflects detailed reasons and bases for the decision. He should then be afforded the applicable time period to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no action until he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).