BVA9502630 DOCKET NO. 91-39 647 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for psychiatric disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. H. Mathis, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from May 1979 to December 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from rating decisions by the Cleveland, Ohio, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In December 1991 and November 1992, the case was remanded to the RO for further action. When service connection for a nervous disorder was denied by the RO in March 1985, it was noted that a personality disorder was shown during service, but that no acquired psychiatric disorder was found. It is currently contended that lithium and Thorazine were prescribed for the veteran's psychiatric difficulties during service; that these medications are used in the treatment of psychoses and not personality disorders; and that the correct diagnosis during service was psychosis, which has continued to the present, and not a personality disorder. The veteran was most recently provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case in February 1994. In March 1994, the RO received a statement from Quest Recovery Services regarding treatment provided the veteran. The case was returned to the Board apparently without this evidence being considered by the RO. Due process requirements require further action on the claim by the RO prior to further appellate action. Further, there have been numerous psychiatric diagnoses during the years since the veteran's service separation, including paranoid schizophrenia, schizoid personality disorder, schizoaffective disorder, alcohol abuse, paranoid personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and cannabis dependence. It is the judgment of the Board that, after the RO ensures that the record is fully developed, findings on a special VA psychiatric examination would be helpful prior to a decision on the merits of the claim. VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to a well-grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993). In view of the foregoing, we conclude that further development, as specified below, is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him for psychiatric disability since service. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the veteran, which have not been previously secured, and associate them with the claims folder. 2. Then, the RO should arrange for a VA examination of the veteran by a board certified psychiatrist, if available, to determine the nature and extent of the veteran's current psychiatric disability. All indicated studies should be performed. The examiner should be requested to examine the veteran, review the record, and provide an opinion, with compete rationale, as to the etiology of any psychiatric disability found to be present, to include an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any such impairment is etiologically related to the multiple symptoms and findings noted during service. It is imperative that a copy of this Remand and the veteran's claims file be made available to the examiner prior to the examination. 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all of the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, including if the requested examination does not include all test reports, special studies or opinions requested, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. 4. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the issue currently certified on appeal, including consideration of the statement received in March 1994 from Quest Recovery Services. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the appellant's satisfaction or if a timely Notice of Disagreement is received with respect to any other matter, a Supplemental Statement of the Case addressing all issues in appellate status should be prepared and furnished to the appellant and his representative. They should be provided an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, in accordance with proper appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. All issues properly in appellate status should be returned to the Board at the same time. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any final outcome warranted. The appellant need take no action until otherwise notified. _____________________________ ROBERT E. SULLIVAN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 State. 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).