BVA9505883 DOCKET NO. 93-08 615 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a hearing loss. 2. Entitlement to service connection for frozen feet. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating for post traumatic stress disorder, currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Ripley P. Schoenberger, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from January 1941 to July 1945. He was a prisoner of war from December 1944 to March 1945. This appeal arises from a June 1991 rating decision by the RO. One of the issues developed for appellate review was entitlement to service connection for a disorder of the skin. However, at his hearing the veteran withdrew the issue (transcript at page 1). At his hearing the veteran raised the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus (transcript at page 3). However, in a January 1992 letter the veteran's wife stated that the veteran was not claiming service connection for tinnitus, and on the notice of disagreement, filed in July 1992, the veteran did not disagree with the denial of service connection for tinnitus. Thus, the Board of Veterans' Appeals does not have jurisdiction of the issue of service connection for tinnitus. This appeal is limited to the three issues listed on the title page. REMAND The veteran contends that the condition of his feet and his hearing loss are due to the hardships that he endured as a prisoner of war. He also claims that his hearing loss is due to acoustical trauma sustained in service. He reports that he was in an antitank division and subjected to loud noises from the big guns. He also claims that his post traumatic stress disorder is worse that the current evaluation indicates. The service medical records are devoid of any complaint or clinical findings of either a hearing loss or of frozen feet. Copies of the office notes of a private physician, dated in April and May 1977, show that the veteran complained that his legs gave out when he walked. However, it was noted by the doctor that the veteran did not want to see anyone else for evaluation of his peripheral vasculature. A VA outpatient treatment note, dated in December 1990, shows that the veteran was being evaluated for hearing aids. The diagnosis was asymptomatic sensorineural hearing loss, especially high frequency, probably secondary to noise exposure, and tinnitus. On the former prisoner of war examination, conducted by the VA in February 1991, the veteran's hearing loss was attributed to an injury while working in the coal mines. It was recommended that the veteran be afforded an audiological examination. However, the veteran was not afforded an audiological examination. On the psychiatric portion of the former prisoner of war examination the examiner assigned a functioning level of 61 on Global Assessment of Functioning Scale. However, the clinical finding reported on the examination are somewhat meager. On the general medical portion of the examination the examiner stated that there were no abnormalities of the feet, but the diagnosis was frozen feet. The Board is aware that organic residuals of frostbite are a presumptive prisoner of war disease, but peripheral vascular disease is not a presumptive prisoner of war disease. 28 C.F.R. § 3.309. However, is unclear if the veteran is suffering from the residuals of frostbite or from peripheral vascular disease. Moreover, is unclear if the veteran's hearing loss is due to acoustical trauma sustained in service, while a prisoner of war, or after service while working in the mines. The veteran was afforded a personal hearing at the RO in October 1991. On his substantive appeal (VA form 1-9) he indicated that he wanted a second personal hearing before a traveling member of the Board of Veterans' Appeals. However, in February 1993 the veteran stated that he did not want a travel Board hearing, but a second hearing at the RO. The RO scheduled him for a second hearing in mid March 1993, but the veteran failed to appear. However, in late March 1993 he indicated that he still wanted a hearing. To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should take appropriate steps to contact the veteran and determine if he still desires a hearing. If so, he should be scheduled for an appropriate hearing. 2. The veteran should be afforded a VA audiological examination to determine the etiology of the veteran's hearing loss. All indicated tests in this regard should be accomplished. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review before the examination. After the examination and a review of the claims folder, the examiner is requested to express an opinion as to the etiology of any hearing loss found. 3. The veteran should be afforded a VA vascular examination to determine if the veteran is suffering from residuals of frostbite. All indicated test in this regard should be accomplished. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review before the examination. 4. The RO should schedule the veteran for a compre-hensive VA psychiatric examination. This study should be conducted in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated tests, including appropriate psychological studies with applicable subscales, must be conducted. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner prior to the requested study. The examiner must assign a Global Assessment of Functioning Score consistent with the American Psychiatric Association's DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL FOR MENTAL DISORDERS (3d ed. rev. 1987), and explain what the assigned score represents. A complete rationale for the opinion expressed must be provided. 5. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, including if the requested examination does not include all test reports, special studies or opinions requested, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. 6. After the development requested above has been completed, the RO should again review the record. If any benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appellant and representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action unless otherwise notified. LAWRENCE M. SULLIVAN 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).