BVA9504251 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 713     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg,
Florida

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Dutzman, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from April 1979 to March 1985 and
from January 1991 to June 1991.

This matter arises from an October 1992 rating decision in which
the regional office (RO) denied entitlement to service connection
for post-traumatic stress disorder.

REMAND

The veteran contends that the RO erred when it denied entitlement
to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder on the
ground that no specific stressor experience in combat was shown
and, instead, found that he suffered from a non-service connected
dysthymic disorder.  In his substantive appeal, the veteran
contends that he spent more than four months in a combat zone
during the Gulf War at which time he was exposed to many
stressful events.  He further states that he continues to receive
treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder at the Veterans'
Administration Medical Clinic in Miami.

The veteran's representative, in a statement dated in April 1993,
points out that the veteran's disability has been diagnosed as
two different conditions.  The representative argues that a
definite diagnosis must be made.  The Board agrees.

After a review of the evidence the Board finds that the veteran's
disability has been diagnosed both as post-traumatic stress
disorder and a dysthymic disorder.  A definitive diagnosis is
essential in resolving the veteran's claim.

In addition, the stressors which the veteran spoke of in his
substantive appeal and treatment records must be investigated
further.  Relevant facts such as names, dates, locations, etc.
pertaining to these stressful events must be gathered so that the
veteran's claim can be properly evaluated.  During treatment in
August 1991, the veteran spoke of helping rescue the injured
after a SCUD missile attack on a U.S. personnel barracks.  This
event, in particular, warrants special investigation.

In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of the Board that
this case should be REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and
request that he furnish information as to
any treatment he has received since service
for post-traumatic stress disorder.  The RO
should then take all necessary steps to
obtain those records and associate them
with the claims folder.

2.  The RO should contact the veteran and
again request that he furnish a written
statement, listing with as much specificity
as possible, the dates, locations, and
names and units of involved individuals of
any stressor events he witnessed or
participated in, to include the names of
any persons he saw wounded or killed.

3.  The RO should attempt to secure any
relevant morning reports and reports of
personnel casualties for the units the
veteran served with.  Any records so
obtained should be associated with the
claims folder.

3.  The RO should contact the United States
Army and Joint Services Environmental
Support Group (ESG), 7798 Cissna Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22150.  That
organization should attempt to verify any
stressors reported by the veteran,
including his involvement in rescue
operations following a SCUD missile attack
on a U.S. personnel barracks.

4.  The veteran should be afforded an
examination by a board of two Department of
Veterans' Affairs (VA) psychiatrists in
order to determine the correct psychiatric
diagnosis.  The examiners should question
the veteran regarding specific stressors he
was subjected to, including the SCUD
missile attack on the U.S. personnel
barracks, and note the significance
thereof.  In order that they have an
accurate history, the claims folder should
be made available to them prior to the
examination.  Any indicated psychological
testing should be conducted.

If after completion of the requested development the benefit
sought has not been granted, the veteran and his representative
should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case,
and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.  Thereafter,
following compliance with all other procedures relative to the
processing of appeals, the case should be returned to the Board
for further appellate consideration of any issue for which a
valid substantive appeal has been submitted.  No action is
required of the veteran until he receives further notice.

          U. R. POWELL
          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).