BVA9501187 DOCKET NO. 93-08 390 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and Mr. [redacted]. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Melissa F. Marquez, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active service from October 1967 to July 1969. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from a February 1991 rating decision of the Waco, Texas, Regional Office (hereinafter RO), of the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA), which denied entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REMAND Appellant's claim for entitlement to service connection for post- traumatic stress disorder appears well-grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991), and, as such, the Board has a duty to assist the appellant in developing the facts pertinent to his claim. Id. The evidentiary record reflects that the appellant was diagnosed with and has received continuing VA outpatient and inpatient treatment since 1990 for post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as chronic paranoid schizophrenia, chronic major depressive disorder, and a brain malformation. While the appellant reported he began receiving VA psychiatric treatment beginning in 1983, no records prior to 1990 are currently associated with the claims folder. During a 1991 personal hearing, as well as in a December 1990 statement and during 1990 psychiatric treatment, the appellant reported specific traumatic events which he witnessed during his wartime service. In particular, he reported witnessing his friend "[redacted] (or [redacted]), Spec 4" commit suicide in or around June 1969 in Chu Lai by blowing himself up with a grenade. He further stated that he assisted in the clean up of his friend's body parts, and in the identification of the body. He asserts that such traumatic events are the source of his current nightmares, flashbacks, hallucinations, and suicidal ideations. The Board has a duty to assist the veteran in the development facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Substantiation of claimed stressors is of great importance in deciding the issue on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (1993); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 614, 618 (1992); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 192 (1991) reconsideration denied, 1 Vet.App. 406 (1991). There is no indication in the record that the RO has made an attempt to verify the appellant's claimed stressor. In addition, a June 1992 VA examination report references an award of social security benefits. The Court of Veterans Appeals has held that the duty to assist also extends to obtaining records from other Government Agencies such as the Social Security Administration. See Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363, 369-72 (1992). Accordingly, the case in REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO should attempt to obtain the appellant's VA outpatient and/or inpatient treatment records from the Dallas, Texas Veterans Administration Medical Center dated from 1983 to 1990, as well as any medical records dated since 1992 not already associated with the claims folder. All pieces of correspondence and any records received should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The RO should contact the appellant and request that he provide a detailed statement concerning the reported traumatic event described above. He should provide specific information such as the date (month, day and year) and location of the incident and unit assignment. He should provide the name, with the correct spelling, of the friend whose killing he witnessed or whose body he saw. In particular, the RO should request the appellant to provide any information in addition to the statement submitted in December 1990 which would help to substantiate his claim. In the event he cannot recall the specific dates of the incidents and other particulars, he should provide as close an approximation and as much information as possible. 3. The specific information provided by the appellant, along with his December 1990 statement, should be sent to the United States Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group (ESG), 7798 Cissna Road, Springfield, Virginia 22150. The RO should request information as to whether the appellant was, in fact, exposed to a service stressor as claimed, and, in particular, the RO should request ESG to check all similar spellings of the name "[redacted]" or "[redacted]" reported by the appellant and request ESG to ascertain whether anyone by that name committed suicide in Chu Lai in June 1969 and whether any such person was in the veteran's unit. 4. The RO should obtain from the appellant necessary information for obtaining records from the Social Security Administration and any other governmental agencies from which the he may be receiving disability income. Records requested should include information concerning the decision made and the evidence used in reaching any decision. In order to avoid undue delay in this case, the RO should make certain that the instructions contained in the REMAND decision, detailing the requested development, have, in fact, been substantially complied with. When this development has been completed, and if the benefit sought is not granted, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, after compliance with appropriate appellate procedures, including issuance of a supplemental statement of the case. It is requested that this statement specifically set forth the reasons and bases for the decision. No action by the appellant is required until he receives further notice. The Board intimates no opinion, either legal or factual, as to the ultimate disposition warranted in the claim for entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, pending completion of the requested development. HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN 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).