BVA9503910 DOCKET NO. 90-03 119 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Togus, Maine THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for headaches, impairment in the sense of smell, sinus disability, throat disability, disability manifested by abnormal body odor, and disability manifested by a chronic cough. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mark J. Swiatek, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from November 1981 to November 1985. This appeal came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from June 1989 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Togus, Maine. In October 1990, the Board remanded the case to the RO because it appeared that the veteran was also claiming that the disabilities at issue were caused by his service exposure to Agent Orange. Thereafter, the veteran provided clarification indicating that he was not claiming to have been exposed to Agent Orange during service . In October 1994, the case was returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. REMAND Initially, the Board notes that the veteran filed a notice of disagreement in September 1989 with the RO's June 1989 rating decision denying the veteran's application to reopen claims for service connection for skin disability, circulatory disability, and joint disability; however, he has not been provided a Statement of the Case on these issues. Moreover, it appears from the veteran's September 1989 correspondence and other correspondence that the veteran is seeking service connection for residuals of toxic chemical exposure such as neutropenia which have not been considered by the RO. The Board further notes that the veteran claims that his service medical records are incomplete. A review of the service medical records discloses that no report identified as a report of examination for discharge is of record. The record before the Board does not demonstrate that the RO has undertaken all reasonable steps to obtain all available service medical records. Moreover, additional postservice medical records pertinent to the veteran's claims may be available. Although the veteran's claim for service connection for headaches is based upon his alleged exposure to toxic chemicals during service, a March 1989 record from the Maine Correctional Center Health Clinic indicates that his headaches were found to be possibly post-traumatic. No specific traumatic incident was identified in the March 1989 record. However, service medical records show that the veteran sustained head trauma in January 1983 and a December 1988 medical record shows that the veteran gave a history of sustaining head trauma when he was 10 years old. The Board notes that the veteran has not been provided a VA examination for the purpose of determining the etiology of his headaches. In light of these circumstances, the Board is of the opinion that further RO action is warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The veteran should be requested to specifically identify all disabilities that he is claiming to be the result of his exposure to toxic chemicals during service. He should also be requested to provide the names, addresses and approximate dates of treatment for all health care providers who treated him prior to service for headaches or head trauma or who treated him during or subsequent to service for any of the disabilities for which service connection is sought. The health care providers identified should include any service facilities. When the requested information and any necessary authorization have been received, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of all indicated records which have not been previously secured. With respect to the missing service medical records, the RO should request any service medical facilities identified by the veteran as well as the National Personnel Records Center to conduct appropriate searches to locate additional records for the veteran, to include his report of discharge examination. 2. The veteran should be provided a VA examination, to include all indicated tests, by a physician with expertise in toxicology. The physician should consider the evidence of record concerning the circumstances of the veteran's alleged service exposure to toxic substances and offer an opinion with respect to each of the veteran's currently present disorders as to whether it's at least as likely as not that the disorder was caused by the veteran's service exposure to toxins. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be explained. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review prior to the examination. 3. The veteran should be provided a VA neurology examination for the purpose of determining the nature and extent of any currently present headache disorder. All indicated studies should be performed. In addition, the neurologist should review the claims folder and offer an opinion as to the etiology of any headache disorder found to be present, to include whether it's at least as likely as not that it is etiologically related to the January 1983 head trauma noted in service medical records. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be explained. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review prior to the examination. 4. Thereafter, the RO should undertake any other indicated development; readjudicate the issues currently on appeal and the issues of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen claims for service connection for skin, joint and circulatory disabilities; and adjudicate the claim for service connection for neutropenia and any other disabilities specified by the veteran. If the benefits sought on appeal, including service connection for skin, joint and circulatory disabilities, are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, or if a timely notice of disagreement is received with respect to any other matter, the veteran and his representative should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case on all issues in appellate status and a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto. They should be advised of the requirements to perfect an appeal with respect to any issue addressed therein which does not appear on the title page of this remand. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further action, if otherwise in order. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. The veteran need take no action until he is otherwise notified by the RO. SHANE A. DURKIN 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).