BVA9502528 DOCKET NO. 92-11 554 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Fargo, North Dakota THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for psychiatric disability, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James L. March, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from October 1970 to November 1971. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Fargo, North Dakota. In February 1994, the Board remanded the case for further development. REMAND In the Board's February 1994 Remand, the RO was instructed to retrieve certain records from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Specifically, the SSA was to provide a copy of its decision granting the veteran disability benefits and the records supporting such decision. Although a copy of the decision was received, copies of the medical records upon which the decision was based were not. The Board notes that several medical records refer to psychiatric hospitalizations shortly after the veteran's discharge from service. However, there are no psychiatric hospitalization reports dated before March 1978. Specifically, a report from the United Hospital dated from March to April 1978 refers to a history of hospitalization for symptoms of anxiety and depression shortly after his discharge from service. The RO should request the veteran to provide the places and dates of all psychiatric treatment since service. A review of the record indicates that the RO denied entitlement to service connection for schizoid personality in an April 1980 rating decision. In addition, in February 1984, the RO denied service connection for PTSD and bipolar disorder. In the course of developing the present case, however, the RO never addressed the potential finality of those decisions. It is unclear whether the RO considered the evidence received subsequent to those decisions new and material. Before a de novo review of the case can be conducted, the RO should first address whether the evidence is new and material. See Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140 (1991). In light of the foregoing, the Board is remanding this case for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the SSA and request copies of the records supporting its February 1990 decision to grant the veteran disability benefits. 2. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him since his discharge from service for psychiatric disability. Of particular interest are any treatment records shortly after service. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the veteran in response to this request, which have not been previously secured. 3. Then, the RO should schedule the veteran for a comprehensive psychiatric examination by a board certified psychiatrist, if available, to determine the nature and extent of any psychiatric disability found to be present. This study must 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. It is requested that the examiner specifically include or exclude a diagnosis of PTSD. If PTSD is diagnosed, the criteria upon which such diagnosis is made, including identification of the stressor(s) should be indicated. If acquired psychiatric disability other than PTSD is diagnosed, the examiner is requested to provide an opinion whether it is as least as likely as not that such disability is attributable to the combat wounds the veteran sustained in service. A complete rationale for any opinion expressed must be provided. 4. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all of 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. 5. Then, the RO should consider whether the evidence submitted subsequent to the February 1984 rating decision is new and material to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for psychiatric disability, including PTSD. If so, the RO should conduct a de novo review of the veteran's claim. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction, the veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to reply. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion as to any ultimate outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified by the RO. ROBERT E. 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).