BVA9505573 DOCKET NO. 93-15 656 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland, Oregon THE ISSUE Entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Robert E. O'Brien, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from October 1974 to March 1977. He was born in October 1954. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 1993 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon. During the development of the case by the RO, the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has decided several cases which impact significantly on the issue of nonservice-connected pension. In Roberts v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 387, 390 (1992), the Court held that each disability in a pension case must be assigned a percentage rating, that the RO should discuss the diagnostic codes used in denying a claim, that a rating decision may not be based on an examination that was conducted before all relevant evidence was gathered, and that the effect of pain on employability must be addressed. In Brown v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 444, 446-47 (1992), the Court held that a pension claim must be considered under the average person standard and the unemployability standard. See also 38 U.S.C.A. § 1502(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.17 (1994). Not all of these matters have been addressed by the RO. The Board also notes that during hospitalization by VA beginning in February 1993, the veteran received psychiatric treatment to control his behavior as well as depression and seizure activity. He made progressive improvement and became more alert and stated he was no longer depressed. He expressed high motivation to go to a satellite alcohol treatment unit program and was accepted for admission on April 8. He insisted on discharge because he had to help his wife move. He stated that he was able to maintain sobriety until commencing the alcohol treatment program without taking Antabuse. At the time of discharge he did not indicate any danger to others. However, in March 1993 he was seen in outpatient consultation, indicating that he was going to blow his brains out. A strong odor of alcohol was noted. The assessment was an antisocial personality disorder and a manic- depressive disorder. No acute medical problem was indicated. He was released to police custody. There is no indication of record whether he commenced treatment in the alcohol treatment program. In view of the foregoing, and in order to give the veteran every consideration with respect to his claim, it is the Board's opinion that further development of the case is desirable. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he provide the names and addresses of all health care providers who have treated him for his various disabilities since 1993 and specify the proximate dates of treatment if possible. Then, after any necessary authorization is obtained, the RO should obtain copies of any treatment records identified by the veteran. The RO should also obtain and associate with the claims folder copies of any outpatient and/or inpatient treatment records pertaining to the veteran at the VA Medical Center in Roseburg, Oregon, and its alcohol treatment unit with a reported admission of the veteran beginning April 8, 1993. 2. A current Income--Net Worth and Employment Statement should be secured from the veteran. 3. The RO should schedule the veteran for general medical and psychiatric examinations to determine the nature and severity of all disabilities present. Any other special examination deemed ;necessary should be conducted. It is imperative that the examiners review the claims folder prior to the examinations. All indicated tests should be conducted. Each examiner should render an opinion as to what effect the disabilities found have on the veteran's ability to work, and state whether the veteran's disabling conditions are susceptible to improvement through appropriate treatment. The factors upon which the opinions are based must be set forth. 4. When the requested developments have been made, the case should be reviewed by the RO, and a rating decision prepared which lists all the veteran's disabilities and the percentage evaluation assigned for each disability utilizing the standards of the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities as required under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (1994). The RO should then review the evidence and determine whether the claim of entitlement to a permanent and total rating for pension purposes may now be granted, utilizing the two standards (i.e., the average person and employability standards) under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1502(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.15, 4.17 (1994). If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case and the veteran and his representative should be provided the applicable time period in which to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration, 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. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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).