BVA9503130 DOCKET NO. 91-36 714 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in White River Junction, Vermont THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased rating for postoperative residuals of an umbilical hernia, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 2. Whether there was clear and unmistakable error in a November 1990 rating decision in denying a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for postoperative residuals of an umbilical hernia. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a chronic acquired psychiatric disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Lawson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant, a veteran, served on active duty from March 1982 to March 1986 and from June 1987 to November 1987. The White River Junction, Vermont Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) denied the benefits sought. The case has been remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) twice, in March 1992 on the third listed issue for additional service medical records and a VA psychiatric examination and May in 1994 for private medical treatment records and adjudicative development on the second listed. REMAND Since the Board's last remand, a July 1994 brief statement from Jamshid Marvasti, M.D. has been received. It states that he treated the appellant in 1980 before service for anxiety, depression, and speech problems, but gives no indication whether any treatment records or data is still available. In connection with the issue of service connection for a chronic acquired psychiatric disability, copies of all actual clinical records of treatment that the appellant received from Dr. Marvasti and others for anxiety, depression, or speech problems before and after service would be helpful in analyzing the appellant's claim. Next, the appellant is attempting to obtain separate disability ratings under 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Diagnostic Codes 7339 and 7804 (1994) for residuals of his postoperative umbilical hernia. While the RO has relied upon the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (1994) in denying the appellant further entitlement, it has not provided the appellant with a copy of such provisions, and it should do so. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(1)(B) (West 1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should obtain and incorporate into the claims folder copies of all actual clinical records of treatment that the appellant received from Jamshid Marvasti, M.D. before service, as well as those from any other health-care providers for anxiety, depression, or speech problems before or after service, including Holistic Medical Service medical records dating from August through November 1989 and LifeGuides Counseling Services medical records from May to February 1990. The appellant should be asked to identify any such other health- care providers, and their clinical records should be obtained. Dr. Marvasti's current address is 139 East Center Street in Manchester, Connecticut 06041. Holistic Medical Services is at 760 Farmington Avenue in West Hartford, Connecticut 06119. LifeGuides is at 160 Farmington Avenue in Bristol, Connecticut 06010. 2. Copies of any outpatient or mental health treatment records should be obtained from the Newington and Hartford, Connecticut, VA Medical Centers. 3. Thereafter, the appellant's psychiatric disability claim should again be reviewed by the RO. 4. The case should be returned to this Board in accordance with the usual appellate procedures after issuance of a supplemental statement of the case in which the appellant is provided with the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 in conjunction with his increased rating for umbilical hernia claim. No action is required of the appellant until he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to further assist the appellant and to provide him with notice of pertinent regulations and laws. No inference is to be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim. SAMUEL W. WARNER 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).