BVA9503296 DOCKET NO. 93-08 547 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Diego, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a chronic disability manifested by regurgitation. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Thomas C. Taylor, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran performed honorable active air service from June 1969 to June 1973 and honorable active naval service from 1977 to 1987. The exact dates of this latter service period are unclear from a review of the record and should be clarified. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 1992 rating determination by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which denied entitlement to service connection for a "history of regurgitation". The veteran has asserted that his regurgitation symptoms began during service and continued thereafter. The veteran is competent to testify to these events and symptoms. Consequently, the Board finds that the veteran's claims are well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. See Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629 (1992); See also King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993). Once a claimant has submitted a well grounded claim, that is a claim which is plausible, either by reason of being meritorious on its own or "capable of substantiation," 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) requires the VA to "assist such a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim." Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 80 (1990); Sagainza v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App, 575, 580 (1991). The veteran's service medical records contain a March 1985 reenlistment medical examination report referencing a history of psychogenic vomiting, resolved. On March 1987 separation medical examination, the summary of defects specifies history of chronic vomiting; very extensive workup has been negative; vomiting is "most likely functional." The most recent, pertinent VA medical examination report, dated in January 1992, indicated a seven-year history of vomiting and suggested that endoscopy might be helpful in the diagnosis. The examination report also emphasized that there were "No relevant records available;" (emphasis in the original). The RO denied service connection on the grounds, restated in the Statement of the Case, that "History of regurgitation is a symptom only and in the absence of an underlying process, service connection is not warranted." Service connection basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In order to grant service connection, the veteran's injury or disease, resulting in chronic disability, must have been incurred on active duty, or the preexisting disability must have aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.306. VA grants service connection for a current disability. See Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141 (1992) (there must be evidence of a current disability for a claim to be well grounded). See also Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 223 (1992). The fulfillment of the VA's statutory duty to assist the veteran includes the conduct of a through and contemporaneous medical examination which contains a medical opinion as to whether the current conditions are in anyway related to those experienced in service. Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 15, 21 (1991). The veteran's representative strongly implies that, in view of the facts in this case, a VARO adjudication which does not inquire into the "underlying disease process" of a "symptom" is, on its face, inadequate. The undersigned agrees. When, during the course of review the Board determines that further evidence or clarification of the evidence or correction of a procedural defect is essential for a proper appellate decision, the Board shall remand the case to the agency of original jurisdiction, specifying the action to be undertaken. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9. Where the record before the Board is inadequate to render a fully informed decision, a remand to the RO is required in order to fulfill the statutory duty to assist. Ascherl v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 371, 377 (1993). In order to fulfill its statutory duty to assist the veteran and adequately develop his claim, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should request, through official channels, verification of the exact dates of the veteran's second period of active service, apparently in the U.S. Navy, beginning sometime in 1977 and ending either in March or April 1987. All clinical records pertaining thereto should be requested for inclusion in the claims folder. 2. The RO should obtain from the veteran the names and addresses of all health care providers who have treated him for vomiting or gastrointestinal symptoms, as well as the approximate dates of such treatment. Then, after obtaining any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should request copies of those treatment records, not already of record. The requested records should include all clinical notes of treatment. 3. The RO should also schedule the veteran for complete VA gastrointestinal and psychiatric evaluations in order to ascertain the nature, extent and etiology of any disability found which is manifested by regurgitation. All indicated testing should be accomplished. The claims folder should be made available to the examining physicians in conjunction with their evaluations. The examiners should be requested to determine whether the veteran has a functional or organic disability, causing his chronic vomiting, as well as its likely etiology. The examiners should identify the clinical pathology on which the opinion is based. 4. The RO should readjudicate the claim in light of all the evidence, including that obtained pursuant to the requested development. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied and the veteran continues to disagree with the decision of the RO, or if otherwise appropriate, the RO should issue a Supplemental Statement of the Case, and should provide the veteran and his representative an opportunity to respond. After the veteran and his representative has had an opportunity to respond, the RO should then return the case to the Board for further consideration. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any ultimate outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified by the RO. J. F. GOUGH 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).