BVA9500113 DOCKET NO. 93-06 913 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for headaches. 2. Entitlement to service connection for memory loss. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeffrey A. Pisaro, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from May 1944 to March 1946. This appeal arises from an August 1992 rating decision of the Louisville, Kentucky, Regional Office (RO). REMAND The veteran claims that the RO erred by failing to grant service connection for headaches and memory loss which were incurred during active service. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertaining to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that the duty to assist includes obtaining available records which are relevant to the claimant's appeal. The duty to assist is neither optional nor discretionary. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). The record shows that he veteran has received medical treatment from a number of private physicians following service until the present. In the initial post service years he was treated by H. Gragg, M.D.; by Richard French, M.D., from 1977 to 1991, by Dr. Alonzo in the early 1990's; and by Douglas Rank, M.D., from 1991 to the present. Complete records should be obtained from the above sources. The duty to assist also includes, when appropriate, the duty to conduct a thorough and contemporaneous examination of the veteran that takes into account the records of prior medical treatment. Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991). This is to ensure that the evaluation of a disability is a fully informed one. An October 1991 report from Dr. Rank recommended that neuropsychological testing be conducted to further evaluate the veteran's memory loss. In addition, it appears that the veteran may have intended to file a claim for entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder as part of his June 1992 claim. The RO did not develop that issue as a separate claim, but considered whether a mental disorder was an etiological precursor of memory loss. Whether the veteran currently suffers from a psychiatric disorder and whether he intends to pursue a claim for such a disorder, should be resolved prior to further appellate consideration. Following the gathering of all available medical records, the veteran should be afforded a VA special examination in neuropsychiatry to include an opinion as to the etiology of memory loss and headaches, if any. Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that further assistance is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and obtain the names and addresses of all health care providers where he has received treatment for the disabilities at issue since separation from service. Thereafter, the RO should obtain legible copies of all medical records which have not already been obtained to include those from H. Gragg, M.D., from Richard French, M.D., from 1977 to 1991, from Dr. Alonzo from the early 1990's, and from Douglas Rank, M.D., from 1991 to the present. Once obtained, all records must be associated with the claims folder. 2. Following completion of the above developments, the veteran should be afforded a VA special examination in neurology and neuropsychiatry to determine the nature and extent of all disability present. All indicated tests should be accomplished, and it is imperative that the physician reviews the entire claims folder prior to the examination so that all disability may be viewed in relation to its history. The examiners should determine whether the veteran currently suffers from memory loss or headaches, and if so, should express an opinion as to the etiology of those disabilities. The factors upon which the medical opinion is based must be set forth. 3. When the above developments have been completed, the claims should be reviewed by the RO. If it is determined that the memory loss is due to a psychiatric condition, the RO should ascertain whether there is new and material evidence to reopen the claim. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran in any way, he and his representative should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case. The veteran and his representative should then be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no action until he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. C. W. SYMANSKI 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. (Continued Next Page) 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).