BVA9508473 
DOCKET NO.  93-09 682     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder of the
feet.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for photophobia.

4.  Entitlement to service connection for residuals of rat bites.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Jeffrey J. Schueler, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from January 1970 to January 1973.

Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
requires medical evidence establishing a clear diagnosis of the
condition, credible supporting evidence that the claimed
inservice stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by
medical evidence, between current symptomatology and the claimed
inservice stressor.  If the claimed stressor is related to
combat, service department evidence that the veteran engaged in
combat or that the veteran was awarded the Purple Heart, Combat
Infantryman Badge, or similar combat citation will be accepted,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as conclusive
evidence of the claimed inservice stressor.  38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)
(1994).  See West v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 70 (1994).

The veteran's MOS was postal clerk and there is nothing in the
record (other than his own statements) showing that he engaged in
combat.  PTSD was diagnosed on VA examination.  The examiner did
not specify the stressor(s) in service to which the PTSD was
attributed.  The veteran gave the examiner a history of being
subjected to sniper fire and mortar attacks and of twice being
bitten by rats.  Service medical records confirm one rat
"scratch" incident.  In separate correspondence the veteran also
recounted an occasion when he visited a graves registration
section.

It is noteworthy also that in correspondence dated in December
1991, the veteran indicated that because of past experiences he
was uneasy about psychotherapy.  On VA examination, the veteran
indicated he had no history of psychiatric treatment.

Finally, the veteran's service medical records show he was
treated for a fungal infection of the feet in service.  VA
examination revealed he has tinea pedis/fungal infection of feet.
He claims the current disorder is related to the complaints in
service and has persisted since service.  On VA examination the
veteran specified he had no residuals of rat bites.

To ensure that Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has met its
duty to assist the appellant in developing the facts pertinent to
the claim, the case is REMANDED to the regional office (RO) for
the following development:

1.  The RO should ask the veteran to
clarify whether or not he was ever treated
for a psychiatric disorder.  If he was, the
complete records of all such treatment
should be obtained and associated with the
claims folder.

2.  The veteran should be scheduled for a
VA psychiatric examination to determine if
he has PTSD.  His claims folder and a copy
of this remand should be available to, and
reviewed by, the examining psychiatrist in
conjunction with the examination.  If in
the examiner's opinion psychological
testing would aid in the assessment of this
case, such testing should be done.  If PTSD
is diagnosed, the examiner must specify the
stressors(s) which caused the disorder.

3.  If PTSD is diagnosed on VA examination
and the diagnosis is based on verifiable
(but not verified) stressors, the RO should
obtain verification of the stressor(s).

4.  The veteran should also be scheduled
for a VA examination by a dermatologist to
ascertain the precise nature and etiology
of any skin disorder of the feet he may
have.  Specifically, the examiner should
determine the nature of any foot skin
disorder present and, after review of the
veteran's service medical records, render
an opinion regarding whether or not the
current disorder is related to the disorder
treated in service in January 1972.  The
veteran's claims folder must be available
to (and reviewed by) the examining
physician in this regard.  The rationale
for the opinion should be given in detail.

When the development above is done, the RO should review it to
ensure that it is complete.  If it is not, the RO should take
appropriate measures to see that it is completed.  The RO should
then review the case.  If the benefits sought remain denied, the
RO should provide the veteran and his representative an
appropriate supplemental statement of the case, giving them ample
opportunity to respond.  The case should then be returned to the
Board for further appellate review.

          GEORGE R. SENYK
          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).