Citation Nr: 0007333 Decision Date: 03/17/00 Archive Date: 03/23/00 DOCKET NO. 93-13 492 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Little Rock, Arkansas THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for hair loss. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder. 4. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a head injury. 5. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a variously diagnosed psychiatric disorder to include post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. A. Wasik, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1947 to October 1951. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 1992, the RO determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claims of entitlement to service connection for hair loss, a skin disorder, a lung disorder, a head injury and a nervous condition on a direct basis or as a residual of exposure to radiation. The veteran has perfected an appeal with all these issues. The rating decision on appeal was issued by the Muskogee, Oklahoma RO. During the course of the appeal, the veteran moved and the North Little Rock, Arkansas RO assumed jurisdiction. The issues on appeal were originally before the Board in October 1993 and May 1998. They were remanded both times for additional evidentiary development. On a statement received in May 1990, the veteran alleged he had difficulties with his teeth as a result of exposure to radiation during active duty. This issue has been neither procedurally prepared nor certified for appellate review and is referred to the RO for initial consideration and appropriate adjudicative action. Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398 (1995). REMAND This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ("the Court") for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See The Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101 (West Supp. 1999) (Historical and Statutory Notes). In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03. Review of the claims files reveals that a summary of deck logs from the USS Springfield for the period from March 16, 1948 to January 31, 1950 and from PCEC 882 for the period from February 27, 1950 to October 19, 1951 have been associated with the claims files. Further review of the claims files reveals that the actual deck logs which were reviewed by the RO have not been associated with the claims files. The RO has relied, in part, on the evidence or the lack thereof in the deck logs in its denial of the veteran's claims. The Board finds the actual deck logs the RO reviewed must be associated with the claims files in order to fairly adjudicate the veteran's claims. Under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5106 and 5107(a), VA has an obligation to obtain all pertinent evidence in the possession of the Federal government. Counts v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 473, 476-78 (1994); see also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The veteran has alleged that he currently experiences hair loss, a skin disorder, a lung disorder, residuals of a head injury and a psychiatric disorder as a result of exposure to radiation while on active duty. In this case, given the nature of the veteran's claims, the deck logs are material and must be associated with the claims files. Accordingly, in light of the above and to ensure the appellant full due process of law, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the RO. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). 2. The RO should contact the appellant and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment of all medical care providers, VA and non-VA, inpatient and outpatient, who have may have additional records referable to the claims on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization or medical releases, the RO should obtain and associate with the claims file legible copies of the veteran's complete treatment reports from all sources identified whose records have not previously been secured. 3. The RO must associate with the claims files a copy of the above referenced deck logs which were used to produce the summary of deck logs. 4. Thereafter, the RO should review the claims file to ensure that all of the above requested development has been completed, and if not, the RO should implement corrective procedures. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). 5. After undertaking any development deemed appropriate in addition to that specified above, the RO should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the appellant's satisfaction, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case. A reasonable period of time for a response should be afforded. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for final appellate review, if otherwise in order. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the RO. RONALD R. BOSCH Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), only a decision of the Board is appealable to the Court. 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) (1999).