BVA9506361 DOCKET NO. 93-13 646 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for residuals of an intracranial injury. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for service-connected anxiety reaction, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard E. Coppola, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1942 to September 1945. In December 1989, the Nashville, Tennessee, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) denied service connection for residuals of an intracranial injury. The RO notified the veteran of the denial by letter dated December 12, 1989. The veteran did not appeal that determination. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 1992 rating decision that denied the veteran's application to reopen his claim for service connection for residuals of an intracranial injury, and entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected anxiety reaction. In April 1993, the RO awarded a 10 percent rating for the service- connected anxiety reaction, effective from February 7, 1991. In a February 1993 statement, the veteran raised a claim for service connection for "arthritis conditions." In an April 1993 statement, the veteran raised a claim for service connection for "arthritis, short leg, malaria and catarrhal fever." In an August 1993 statement, the veteran raised a claim for service connection for arthritis of multiple joints. The claims folder indicates that service connection had been previously denied for arthritis of multiple joints, low back pain secondary to inequality of the lower extremities and catarrhal fever. The claims also reveals that the veteran has already been awarded service connection for residuals of malaria. These issues are referred to the RO for clarification and appropriate action. REMAND The veteran requested a VA compensation examination in connection with his claim for increased benefits. The veteran indicated in several statements that he was experiencing increased symptoms and requested re-examination to determine the current nature and severity and severity of his service-connected disability. The claims folder discloses that the RO did not afford the veteran a VA examination. The most recent VA compensation examination was conducted in June 1989. Under the circumstances, the Board finds that additional development of the evidence is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The veteran should identify the names and addresses of any medical care providers, VA or otherwise, who have treated him for his service-connected disability since January 1993. The veteran reported that he has received treatment for his service-connected disorder at the Nashville, Tennessee, and Murfreesboro, Tennessee, VA Medical Centers. After obtaining any needed authorization from the veteran, the RO should request copies of all such records for inclusion in the claims folder. 2. The veteran should be afforded a psychiatric examination in order to determine the current manifestations and severity of his service-connected psychiatric disability. The examination should be conducted in accordance with VA's Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations, and should include any indicated testing, including appropriate psychological studies. The examiner should elicit from the veteran a detailed work history, as well as data concerning his education, medical, and social history. The veteran previously testified at a personal hearing that he is retired. Transcript, p. 3 (Jan. 1990). The examiner should report the veteran's complaints, provide a description of pertinent symptoms, subjective and objective, and integrate current findings and diagnoses with earlier data. The examiner should also discuss the degree of impairment attributable to the psychiatric disorder and provide a Global Assessment of Functioning Scale code along with the associated descriptive phrase. The claims folder must be made available to the physician prior to the examination. 3. When the above development has been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO. The rating decision should reflect consideration of all potentially applicable criteria, to include consideration of the applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1). 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 which summarizes the pertinent evidence and reflects detailed reasons and bases for the decision. They should then be afforded the applicable time period 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. The issue of whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for residuals of an intracranial injury is deferred. EUGENE A. O'NEILL 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 deter- mination. 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).