BVA9506185 DOCKET NO. 93-16 875 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mark J. Swiatek, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from March 1991 to November 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 1993 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. It is asserted by and on behalf of the veteran, in essence, that his psychiatric disability was initially manifested during active service. The record includes service medical records showing no history of or current psychiatric complaints on a 1989 examination. After an October 1991 medical board evaluation, it was determined that the veteran had a depressive disorder, not otherwise specified, that had existed prior to service and had not been aggravated by service. The report notes that the veteran had not had a prior psychiatric treatment history. On the cover sheet of the report, it is noted that an entrance medical examination had been performed during March 1991. The report of this examination is not on file. The Board has noted the several pertinent statements on file provided by the veteran's family members and friends. The Board observes that after a VA psychiatric examination in December 1992, an examiner stated that no definite diagnosis could be made. However, after VA hospitalization in February 1993, the principle psychiatric diagnosis was atypical affective disorder. The RO has denied the claim finding that a psychiatric disability clearly pre-existed service and had not been aggravated beyond natural progress during active service. In view of the facts in this case and the decision of the United States Court of Veterans Appeals in Crowe v. Brown, No. 93-550 (U.S. Vet. App. Dec. 20, 1994) regarding the necessity of medical opinion to support conclusions of pre-existing disability and aggravation during service, the Board finds that additional development is warranted. (A copy of this decision is attached.) Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1 The RO should make another attempt to secure the veteran's complete, original service medical records through official channels. Of significance is the report of an entrance physical examination reported to have been performed on March 23, 1991, at Miami, Florida. All attempts to obtain these records should be documented in the claims folder. 2. The veteran should be contacted and asked to provide the names and addresses of all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him for any psychiatric disability after his separation from active service in 1991. He should also be requested to identify those physicians who treated him at any time for such disability prior to service. After obtaining the appropriate release for medical information, the RO should request all records which have not been previously obtained and associate them with the claims folder. 3. Thereafter, the veteran should be scheduled for an examination by a board- certified psychiatrist, if available, to determine the nature and extent of any psychiatric disability. The examiner is requested to review the claims folder and provide an opinion regarding the following questions: (1) Did a history of psychiatric complaints, in the absence of medical records showing treatment for, or a diagnosis of, a psychiatric disability prior to service conclusively establish that the veteran had such disability upon entering service in 1991; (2) If so, was there a worsening of the veteran's psychiatric disability during service; and (3) if so, is there clear and unmistakable evidence that the increase in severity was due to the "natural progress" of the disease; (4) or did the psychiatric symptoms in service render the veteran more susceptible to such symptoms later and; (5) could a worsening of the condition reasonably have been expected to have been found at the time of the separation examination. If the first question is answered in the negative, the examiner is requested to provide an opinion regarding etiologic significance, if any, of the psychiatric complaints prior to and during service, and any psychiatric disability currently found. The examiner should provide a rationale for all opinions and conclusions expressed. 4. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the issue on appeal to include consideration of Crowe v. Brown regarding pre-existing disabilities and aggravation by service. If the benefit certified on appeal is not granted, a supplemental statement of the case should be issued and the veteran and his representative provided the applicable period in which to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further consideration, if 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. 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 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. Law No. 103-436, § 303, 108 Stat. 4546 ____ (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) (1993).