BVA9507188 DOCKET NO. 93-08 427 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Providence, Rhode Island THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for duodenal ulcer. 2. Entitlement to service connection for gastritis. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Daniel J. McTavish, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1983 to January 1987. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a June 1992 rating decision by the Providence, Rhode Island Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), denying service connection for duodenal ulcer and gastritis. The Board notes that the veteran, in March 1992, disagreed with a January 1992 rating action which proposed a reduction in the evaluation assigned for his service-connected pulmonary disability. The rating was reduced by a May 1992 rating action, and a statement of the case on the rating reduction issue was issued in late May 1992. However, a substantive appeal with regard to that issue has not been filed and, accordingly, the issue is not properly before the Board for appellate review. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 1991). REMAND The veteran submitted a claim for service connection for an ulcer and a "digestive problem" in March 1992. He stated that these disorders were secondary to the anxiety and stress he had while on active military duty because of his pulmonary tuberculosis. He requested that his service medical records be reviewed in support of his claim. A private medical statement dated April 1992 indicates that the veteran was treated in July 1991 for stress-related gastric symptoms. An upper gastrointestinal survey and an ultra- sonography of the gallbladder were both negative. The physician indicated that he treated the veteran for acute and chronic gastritis resulting from "long-term stress situations." In June 1992, the RO denied service connection for a duodenal ulcer and gastritis. While the issue was stated as being one of secondary service connection, the RO apparently considered the veteran's claim on a direct and secondary basis as it was noted that the veteran's service medical records were negative for these disorders. The Board notes that service medical records provide some indication that the veteran received treatment for gastritis as well as peptic ulcer disease from February 1986 through April 1986. Despite the fact that the veteran, in his notice of disagreement, disagreed with the denial of service connection for these disorders on a secondary basis, it is apparent from his initial claim that he related these disorders to service and not solely on a secondary basis. A statement of the case was issued in March 1993, addressing the issue of service connection. However, the veteran was not apprised of the legal criteria for service connection on a direct basis. The RO should consider the veteran's claim again on a direct and secondary basis. Accordingly, the Board finds that further development of the record is necessary in order to assist the veteran in the development of his claim. Therefore, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. All up-to-date VA and private clinical records for the veteran should be obtained and incorporated into the claims file. In connection therewith, the RO should contact him and ask him to identify all sources of medical treatment for duodenal ulcer and gastritis since service. Specifically, the RO should obtain all treatment records of the veteran, from July 1991 to the present, from Arturo Longobardi, M.D. All records should be obtained in compliance with appropriate procedure. 2. The RO should then schedule the veteran for a VA gastrointestinal examination in order to ascertain what, if any, gastrointestinal disorders he may now have. All indicated tests should be performed and all clinical findings should be set forth in detail. If any gastrointestinal disorders are found, the examiner should comment on any relation between the current disorders and the symptomatology noted during service. The examiner should also comment on the likelihood of any relationship between the veteran's service- connected pulmonary disability and any current gastrointestinal disorders found to be present. In accordance with recent United States Court of Veterans Appeals decisions, the claims folder should be made available to the examining physician for review prior to the examination. 3. If, after further consideration of the claim on the basis of both direct and secondary service connection, the decision remains adverse to the veteran, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the case summarizing the evidence, and all applicable laws and regulations including the legal criteria for both direct and secondary service connection, and explaining the application of the laws and regulations to the evidence. The purpose of this REMAND is to further assist the veteran and afford due process of law. No action is required of the veteran until further notice. D. C. SPICKLER 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).