BVA9503221 DOCKET NO. 93-07 247 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: West Virginia Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michele M. Florack, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from December 1968 to November 1971. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from a September 1991 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The veteran's DD Form 214 indicates his military occupational specialty as a combat engineer. Service personnel records show that he served as a heavy truck driver in Vietnam and as a combat construction specialist and combat demolition assistant in Europe following his service in Vietnam. The veteran has submitted several statements describing his stressors. He has reported that he was involved in a convoy of about twenty trucks when the truck directly behind him was hit by mortar. The driver's limbs were all blown off, but the soldier remained conscious until the evacuation helicopter arrived. During that time, the veteran and others stayed with the severely wounded soldier and tried to reassure him that he would be fine. Meanwhile, some Vietnamese children were not far away, laughing at something. One of the soldiers lost control and "cut one of the children in half" with his M-16. The veteran claims to have flashbacks and nightmares of both scenes. His own young son's laughter causes the veteran distress and he feels compelled to discipline the boy. On another occasion while the veteran was involved with working on a roadway, a half-dressed Viet Cong soldier armed with a rifle came running down the road. Despite being fired at numerous times, the Viet Cong soldier kept running at the veteran's unit until a bullet "ripped off half his head." Later, someone put an Ace of Spades in the dead man's hand and photographs were taken. (The veteran allegedly has such a photograph.) The veteran recounted that on a third occasion, a Vietnamese woman had broken through the perimeter wire in the night and was apparently attempting to set a satchel charge when she was shot. When he found the body of the woman the next day, he saw that she was just outside the door of his bunker. The realization that he could have been killed was profoundly disturbing. To this day the veteran sleeps, uneasily, with a weapon. Several private and VA examiners have suggested that the veteran may have PTSD. Their assessments have been primarily on the basis of the descriptions of the veteran's service experiences as reported by the veteran. In this regard, we point out that Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 406 (1991) held that the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the Board) is not bound to accept the diagnosis of PTSD if the evidence of record does not objectively support that diagnosis. In an attempt to verify the stressors set forth by the veteran, the services of the U.S. Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group (ESG) were requested. In an August 1991 statement, the ESG advised that two different first names were given for the veteran, that his DD Form 214 was not submitted, and that his units of assignments and tour dates were not provided. The RO did not subsequently provide the ESG with the requested information. The Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) has a statutory duty to assist the appellant in the development of facts pertinent to her well-grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159 (1993). In this regard, the Board is of the opinion that further development is desirable: 1. The veteran should be requested to provide any specific names, dates and locations of the incidents he has described. In particular, he should designate the names of any individuals involved or killed in the events he has described. 2. The RO should provide the ESG with a copy of the veteran's DD Form 214, his service personnel extract, the various statements he has submitted outlining the events which occurred in Vietnam, and any information obtained pursuant to the above requested development. The ESG should be requested to provide any background information regarding the duties of the veteran's unit and confirmation of any events cited by the veteran. 3. The RO should obtain the records of treatment of the veteran by either private or VA physicians for his psychiatric disorder. All records obtained should be associated with the claims folder. 4. After all the above-requested development has been completed, the RO should arrange for examination of the veteran by a VA psychiatrist to determine the diagnosis(es) of any psychiatric disorder(s) found to be present. If PTSD is identified, the factors which support the diagnosis should be set forth, including the stressors found to have occurred. The veteran's claims folder should be made available to the examiner for study in this case. When this development has been completed, the claim should be reviewed by the RO. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the appellant and his representative should be given a supplemental statement of the case with regard to the additional development and should also be afforded an opportunity to respond. The record should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. No action by the appellant or his representative is required until further notice is received. V. L. JORDAN 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).