BVA9505061 DOCKET NO. 89-02 260 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Phoenix, Arizona THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for seizure disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for kidney disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. H. Mathis, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from February 1966 to November 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona. In June 1989, the Board remanded the case to the RO pending the promulgation of additional regulations governing benefits for residuals of herbicide exposure. The Board did not consider the merits of the veteran's appeal in 1989 regarding the Agent Orange claim because in May 1989 the United States District Court, Northern District of California, had voided all benefit denials under existing herbicide exposure regulations. New regulations have since been promulgated. Also during the interim, the veteran claimed and the RO denied service connection for post- traumatic stress disorder. It is contended that the veteran developed seizures within a year of service discharge; that kidney disability was initially manifested during service; that exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam contributed to cause disability; and that stressor exposure during service resulted in post-traumatic stress disorder. The service medical records reflect that the veteran complained of kidney trouble in December 1966 and that there was an impression of cystourethritis. There were impressions of post-traumatic stress disorder by a VA counseling therapist on the veteran's VA outpatient treatment visits in June and July 1991. In the rating decision of January 1993 denying service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, the RO noted that there had been an assessment of post- traumatic stress disorder, but that it had been by a therapist and there had been none by a physician. The record reflects that in February 1990, the veteran reported that he had seen Dr. Berkley about his complaints of anger and rage, and that she may have diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. The veteran has also provided detailed information regarding stressor exposure, including the units involved and the specific events which occurred. However, the RO never attempted to verify any stressors alleged by the veteran. The RO should submit the information furnished by the veteran to the United States Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group (ESG) for verification. Although some of the veteran's personnel records have been obtained, the DD Form 214 has not been. This should be obtained for review. Also, the RO should take other additional action to insure that the record is complete and VA has fulfilled its duty to assist the veteran in the development of the claims. In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes that further action, as specified below, would be helpful prior to decisions on the merits of the claims. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should obtain the veteran's complete service personnel records, including the DD Form 214, for association with the claims folder. 2. The veteran should be requested to identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him at any time since service discharge for disabilities for which he is claiming service connection, especially any treatment for seizures during the first year after service discharge. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the veteran, which have not been previously secured, and associate them with the claims folder. In any event, the RO should obtain copies of all VA treatment records which have not previously been secured. 3. The RO should review the file and prepare a summary of all claimed stressors. This summary and all associated documents should be sent to the ESG, 7798 Cissna Road, Springfield, Virginia 22150. They should be requested to provide any information which might corroborate the veteran's alleged stressors. 4. Then, the RO should arrange for the veteran to undergo a VA examination by a board certified psychiatrist, if available, to determine the nature and extent of any current psychiatric disability. Any special diagnostic studies deemed necessary should be performed. In addition, a formal diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder should be specifically included or excluded. If the veteran is found to have post-traumatic stress disorder due to service, the examiner is requested to identify the diagnostic criteria including the specific stressor(s) accountable for the disorder. The rationale for all opinions expressed should be fully explained. It is imperative that the claims folder and a copy of this REMAND be provided to the examiner for review prior to examination. 5. The veteran should also be afforded a VA examination by a board certified urologist, if available, to determine the nature and extent of any kidney disability shown. All indicated studies should be completed. The examiner is requested to review the claims folder and provide an opinion, with complete rationale, as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any kidney disability shown had its etiology during service. It is imperative that a copy of this Remand and the claims folder be provided to the examiner for review prior to examination. 6. The veteran should also be afforded a VA examination by a board certified neurologist, if available, to determine the nature and extent of any seizure disorder shown. All indicated studies should be completed. It is necessary that a copy of this Remand and the claims folder be provided to the examiner for review prior to examination. 7. Further, the veteran should be examined regarding his claim that he has disability as a residual of Agent Orange exposure. All indicated studies should be completed. A copy of this Remand and the claims folder should be provided to the examiner for review prior to examination. 8. Thereafter, the RO should undertake any other indicated development, and readjudicate the issues currently certified on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the appellant's satisfaction, a Supplemental Statement of the Case addressing all issues in appellate status should be prepared and furnished to the appellant and his representative. They should be provided an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, in accordance with proper appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any final outcome warranted. The appellant need take no action until otherwise notified. ROBERT E. SULLIVAN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 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) (1993).