BVA9502037 DOCKET NO. 94-01 629 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson, Mississippi THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, allergic rhinitis, sinusitis, hypertension, bronchitis, pterygium, colitis, and a herniated nucleus pulposus of the lumbar spine. 2. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for an umbilical hernia and repair thereof. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Mississippi Veterans Affairs Board WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and Spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Brian J. Milmoe, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1970 to January 1972. This case was most recently before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) in November 1994, when it was administratively remanded to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Jackson, Mississippi, pursuant to its request so that initial processing of unrelated issues could occur. Issues raised by the veteran regarding his entitlement to service connection for variously diagnosed entities, claimed as residuals of Agent Orange exposure, have not been appropriately developed or certified for appellate review at this time. As such, those matters are referred to the RO for appropriate consideration. REMAND At a hearing before BVA sitting in Jackson, Mississippi, in January 1994, the veteran submitted additional documentary evidence which he requested that the RO review prior to any consideration of same by BVA. Some of the documents presented were treatment reports from private physicians and it was the veteran's testimony that such documents represented only "the tip of the iceberg." While it was noted that one of his treating physicians was no longer permitted to practice medicine and that his records were no longer available, it was also set forth that not all pertinent medical data had been obtained from all VA and non-VA sources. To permit the RO to review evidence not previously considered, and to assist the veteran in the development of all pertinent facts involving his claim, as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107, BVA hereby REMANDS this case to the RO for the completion of the following actions: 1. The veteran should be contacted in writing and requested to furnish, to the extent possible, the names and addresses of those physicians and institutions, including those within the VA health care system, providing medical care to him for any of the disabilities in question since his discharge from military service. The approximate date(s) of treatment should also be supplied. Also, the names and addresses of any past employers who may have undertaken medical examinations of the veteran in the context of his employment should be provided by the veteran. Upon receipt of such information, the RO should obtain all pertinent VA and non-VA examination and treatment records not already on file, including those previously noted by the veteran to have been compiled by Kenneth Ridgeway, M.D., of Greentown, Indiana, Arthur Woods III, M.D., of Waynesboro, Mississippi (treatment allegedly since the 1970's), and the VA Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi (treatment allegedly since 1978). Once obtained, those records should be incorporated into the veteran's claims folder. 2. The RO should obtain from the Social Security Administration all medical and administrative records utilized by that agency in the veteran's claim for disability benefits, reportedly granted by action of an Administrative Law Judge in or about February 1983. Once obtained, those records should be made a part of the veteran's claims folder. 3. The RO should undertake all development outlined in the VA's Veterans Benefits Administration Manual M-21-1, paragraph 7.46 (formerly 50.45) in an effort to obtain supportive evidence the veteran's claimed stressors. Such development should include obtaining from the veteran a detailed written account of inservice stressors, specifically including the exact dates on which the reported incidents occurred in which the veteran struck and killed Vietnamese civilians when operating a convoyed motor vehicle, the exact location of any and all of those incidents, the names of any other U.S. Army personnel who were present at the times of any such incident, whether those incidents were officially reported and to whom, and the unit to which the veteran was assigned when any such incident occurred. Also, the RO should attempt to obtain supporting documentation of the claimed stressors from the Department of the Army Environmental Support Group or other source. 4. Finally, the veteran should be afforded a medical examination by a VA surgeon for the purpose of evaluating the nature and severity of the veteran's service-connected residuals of an umbilical hernia repair. Such evaluation should be performed in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 7.29 of the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. Any and all indicated tests should be conducted. The claims folder in its entirety should be made available to the examiner for use in the study of this case. Thereafter, the record should be reviewed in its entirety by the RO and each issue readjudicated. If any action remains adverse to the veteran in any way, he and his representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case. They should then be afforded a reasonable period of time in which to respond. The case should then be returned to BVA for further appellate consideration. BRUCE KANNEE 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).