BVA9504052 DOCKET NO. 92-18 293 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for osteoarthritis as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation. 2. Entitlement to service connection for schistosomiasis as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation. 4. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus of the left ear as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Sheila A. Lawson, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from October 1944 to March 1946, and from July 1954 to June 1956. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 1991 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The veteran contends that service connection is warranted for osteoarthritis, schistosomiasis, hypothyroidism and tinnitus. In support of this contention, the veteran asserts that he was exposed to ionizing radiation during service, and that this alleged exposure resulted in the disabilities for which he now claims entitlement to service connection. In November 1988, the Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for osteoarthritis, schistosomiasis, hypothyroidism and tinnitus of the left ear as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation. In an April 1991 rating decision from which the veteran now appeals, the RO confirmed the Board's decision. In view of the decision in Combee v. Brown, No. 93- 7107, (U.S. Ct. App. Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 1994), the Board will analyze these claims on a de novo basis. During the pendency of this appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that section 5 of the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation-Exposure Compensation Standards Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-542, 98 Stat. 2725, 2727-29, did not preclude, or authorize VA to preclude, a veteran from proving that he has a disability as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1993), despite the fact that the claimed disability is not a potentially radiogenic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311b (now § 3.311). Combee v. Brown, No. 93-7107, (U.S. Ct. App. Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 1994), reversing in part Combee v. Principi, 4 Vet.App. 78 (1993). In such cases, a veteran must be given an opportunity to prove that his exposure to ionizing radiation during service actually caused his claimed disability and that service connection is therefore warranted under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Moreover, review of the record reveals that in his January 1995 informal hearing presentation, the veteran's representative raised, on the veteran's behalf, the issue of entitlement to an evaluation higher than 50 percent for the veteran's service- connected psychiatric disability. In view of the veteran not having undergone a VA psychiatric examination since April 1990, the Board finds that more current clinical data are necessary. Further, the Board notes that records pertaining to psychiatric treatment of the veteran by Raul Correa Grau, M.D., dated from 1988 to 1990 and a January 1991 fee-basis examination are in Spanish and require translation. An additional record that requires translation is the report of a July 1990 audiological evaluation by Teresita Rodriguez. In light of the foregoing circumstances, the Board concludes that a remand is warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should provide English translations of those documents addressed previously. 2. With reference to the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected psychiatric disability, the RO should request that the veteran identify specific names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all health care providers from whom he has received treatment in recent years for his service-connected psychiatric disability. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain the treatment records identified by the veteran that have not been secured previously. 3. Then, the RO should arrange for VA psychiatric examination of the veteran by a board-certified psychiatrist, if available, to determine the nature and extent of any current psychiatric disability found to be present. All indicated studies should be performed. The psychiatrist should provide a Global Assessment of Functioning score for the veteran with an explanation of the significance of the score provided. She/he should also express an opinion, supported by complete rationale, concerning the extent of occupational impairment attributable to the psychiatric disability. The veteran's claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination. 4. The RO also should afford the appellant an opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of his claims for service connection for osteoarthritis, schistosomiasis, hypothyroidism and tinnitus as a result of radiation exposure. 5. If medical or other competent evidence to show that the veteran's service connection claims are plausible is received, the RO should undertake all indicated development and then adjudicate, on a de novo basis, the appellant's claims of entitlement to service connection for osteoarthritis, schistosomiasis, hypothyroidism and tinnitus as a result of radiation exposure in light of the Federal Circuit's decision in Combee v. Brown, supra. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim of entitlement to increased evaluation for his service-connected psychiatric disability. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the appellant's satisfaction or if a timely notice of disagreement is received with respect to any other matter, including the disposition of the claim for an increased evaluation for psychiatric disability, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case on all issues in appellate status, and the appellant should be provided an opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. 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).