BVA9500706 DOCKET NO. 93-06 951 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Phoenix, Arizona THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability to include Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tresa Schlecht, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from August 1967 to June 1971 and March 1972 to March 1974. In a December 1987 rating decision, service connection for a nervous disorder, classified as a bipolar disorder was denied. The appellant was notified of the December 1987 decision in that same month, but did not file a timely notice of disagreement with that decision. A February 1991 rating decision denied the appellant's request to reopen his claim for service connection of manic depression and denied a claim for service connection of PTSD. The appellant was so notified. The appellant did not file a notice of disagreement regarding that decision. This decision was further confirmed by rating action of September 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Phoenix, Arizona, determining that the veteran had not submitted new and material evidence to warrant reopening of his claims for service connection for manic depression and PTSD. REMAND The appellant contends, both in his request to reopen and in his substantive appeal, that he has PTSD and that his PTSD was diagnosed by VA. VA medical records from 1987 and 1988 are associated with the claims file. These VA records reference VA outreach counselor involvement, but no outreach records are associated with the file. The appellant further contends in his substantive appeal that, while on submarine combat duty, he was confined with a live torpedo in a locked torpedo tube from which he could not be released until the ship surfaced, and that he feared for his life. The appellant suggests that a search of the ship's logs of the submarine on which he served will document the occurrence of this stressor and others he described. The evidence in the record does not document that the RO requested such a search. Such evidence, if it exists, would be material to appellant's claim regarding PTSD. The appellant's service representative apparently contends that the appellant's current nervous condition was first treated in service, although the diagnostic label attached to the nervous condition at that time differs from the appellant's current diagnoses. There is no medical opinion in the record which addresses this allegation. The representative further contends that the appellant should be examined by a psychiatrist who has reviewed the records of the veteran's treatment while on active duty for the purpose of evaluating the relationship between the veteran's current psychiatric disability and the circumstances of his military service. It appears that review of the appellant's in-service symptoms and treatment by the examiner who examined the appellant in January 1991 may have been based only on history obtained from the veteran because the description of in-service treatment is inaccurate. Additionally, the claims file contains personnel actions and some medical records related to active duty for training occurring shortly after appellant's verified active service. It is not clear whether this information is complete. This Board section, after careful review of the claims file, is of the opinion that further development of the evidence is necessary prior to a determination regarding reopening of the claim. See Counts v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 473 (1994). Therefore, this case is REMANDED for the following development: 1. The RO should contact the service department to verify any reserve duty for training and whether such training was active or inactive. The RO should obtain any medical records or personnel records pertaining to such duty. 2. The RO should conduct the necessary development to determine whether additional records of VA treatment or services exist and to obtain any additional available VA or private post service records. In this regard, we note that reference was made in the record to outreach services and to a veterans' center counselor. If these records are available, they should be associated with the file. 3. The RO should ask the veteran to provide more specific information regarding alleged stressors where specific information has not yet been provided, including the dates, location, the times, ship names, or other appropriate information, so that the RO can determine what further sources for verifying stressors may exist. The RO should request records already identified, including ship logs for the specific submarines identified by the veteran, for review of stressor corroboration. Any additional personnel records not on file should also be requested. 4. The veteran should be afforded a VA psychiatric examination in order to determine what, if any, acquired psychiatric disorders may be present. The examiner should discuss the relationship, if any, between the veteran's current psychiatric disabilities and the appellant's symptoms and treatment in service. The examiner should consider appellant's military occupational specialty and whether the stressors in service, such as confinement in a locked torpedo tube with a live torpedo, if confirmed, are recognized as sufficient to lead to development of PTSD. If the examiner believes that post-traumatic stress disorder is present, the examiner should identify the stressors that caused this disorder and specify the symptoms diagnostic of this disorder. The claims folder must be made available for review prior to the examination and the entry of the opinion requested. When the aforementioned development has been accomplished the case should be reviewed by the RO. In the event the benefits sought are not granted, the veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified. MICHAEL D. LYON 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) (1993).