BVA9501284 
DOCKET NO.  93- 05 618    )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland,
California

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. M. Barnard, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active service from July 1954 to July 1958.

This appeal arises from a May 1991 rating decision of the
Seattle, Washington, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to service
connection for PTSD.  The veteran testified at a personal hearing
in March 1992 at the Oakland, California RO, which is currently
handling this case.  The hearing officer confirmed and continued
the denial of the benefit sought in a decision issued in
September 1992.

The veteran contends, in essence, that he suffers from PTSD as a
direct result of his active duty.  He states that he served
aboard two ships in the waters off Formosa, where he saw numerous
American casualties.  As a result, he asserts that he experiences
depression, occasional nightmares, and daily memories of his
service.  Therefore, he claims service connection for PTSD should
be granted.

VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of all
facts pertinent to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991);
38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993).  This includes the duty to obtain VA
examinations which are an adequate basis upon which to determine
entitlement to the benefit sought.  Littke v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App 90 (1991).  Examinations by a specialist are recommended
in those cases which present a complicated disability picture.
Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991).

In the instant case, it is noted that the February 1991 VA
examination was performed without benefit of a thorough review of
the claims folder by the examiner.  The veteran was the sole
source of the history of his complaints, and the examination
noted that he was a poor historian.  Moreover, the record
indicates that there were diagnoses of both PTSD and depression
in the record.  Unfortunately, the VA examination did not provide
an unequivocal diagnosis; rather, it indicated that PTSD was
"probable."  Clearly, another examination, that considers all the
evidence of record and establishes a definitive diagnosis, is
necessary.

Furthermore, the veteran indicated in his hearing testimony that
he served aboard three vessels that were subjected to attack,
thus placing his life in danger.  However, the record contains no
evidence that the RO ever attempted to verify this information,
such as by obtaining ship histories or daily logs.  Such
information is crucial in the verification of his claimed
stressors.  Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 91,97 (1993); Manual
M21-1, Part VI, para. 7.46(e), (f) (Dec. 21, 1992).  Moreover,
the veteran's personnel records were never obtained.

Under the circumstances of this case, it is the finding of the
undersigned that additional assistance is necessary, and this
case is REMANDED to the RO for the following:

1.  The RO should contact the appropriate
Service Department and request that they
provide a copy of the veteran's personnel
records (DA-20), as well as the ship
histories and daily logs of the USS Helena,
the USS St. Paul and the USS Samuel N.
Moore.  Once this information has been
received, the case should be forwarded to
the Environmental Support Group, 7798
Cissna Road, Suite 1, Springfield, Virginia
22050-3197, so that the veteran's claimed
stressors can be verified.

2.  Once this information has been obtained
and associated with the claims folder, the
RO should afford the veteran a psychiatric
examination so that a definitive diagnosis
can be obtained.  The examiner should
specifically determine whether the veteran
suffers from PTSD or some other disorder.
All indicated special studies should be
accomplished.  The claims folder must be
made available to the examiner prior to the
examination so that the veteran's entire
medical history can be taken into
consideration.

In the event that the appellant's claim remains denied, in whole
or in part, he and his representative should be provided with an
appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and the case
should be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration if otherwise in order.

          C. P. RUSSELL
          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).