BVA9505647 DOCKET NO. 93-14 928 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for Reiter's syndrome. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard E. Coppola, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from February 1972 to November 1977, and again from February 1991 to June 1991. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of October 1991 from the Seattle, Washington, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for Cleveland, Ohio. In March 1993, the RO denied service connection for hypertension. The RO notified the veteran of that decision by letter dated April 26, 1993; the veteran has not appealed that decision. REMAND The veteran seeks service connection for Reiter's syndrome. He argues that this disability was aggravated in his second period of active duty during the Persian Gulf War. 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (1994). The evidence includes private medical statements of Steven J. Farber, M.D., which are dated from June 1990 to October 1991. These statements show that Dr. Farber originally evaluated the veteran in June 1990 and provided diagnoses of Reiter's syndrome versus psoriatic peripheral arthropathy. Additional private medical records dated prior to June 1990 also indicated a question regarding the proper diagnosis based on the complaints and findings at that time. In November 1990, Dr. Farber submitted a statement requesting that the veteran be excused from Reserve duty because his Reiter' syndrome was active. In a February 1991 statement, Dr. Farber stated that the veteran should not be sent overseas to participate in the Persian Gulf War due to his limited physical capabilities caused by Reiter's syndrome. An August 1991 statement indicates he next examined the veteran in July 1991 because of marked activity of disease. Dr. Farber indicated his reasons for the diagnosis of Reiter's syndrome, but raised the possibility of rheumatoid arthritis because of the symmetric appearance of the veteran's symptoms. He referred the veteran to Timothy Laing, M.D., University of Michigan Medical Center, 3918 Taubman Center, P.O. Box 0358, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109, for evaluation and assessment. Dr. Laing's records were not requested or submitted. It is also unclear whether all VA and private medical records have been obtained. The representative argues that the VA failed in its duty to provide the veteran a VA compensation examination. Under the circumstances, the Board finds that additional development of the evidence is necessary. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. The veteran should identify the names and addresses of any medical care providers, VA or otherwise, who have provided examination and treatment for Reiter's syndrome. The evidence indicates post-service medical treatment and evaluation of the veteran's symptoms by Timothy Laing, M.D., University of Michigan Medical Center, 3918 Taubman Center, P.O. Box 0358, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48109, subsequent to August 1991. The most recent VA medical records are dated from March 1992 to December 1992. After obtaining any needed authorization from the veteran, the RO should obtain copies of all these records. 2. The RO should request the veteran to submit copies of any additional service medical records for his February 1991 to June 1991 period of active duty and any Reserve records in his possession. Through official channels, the RO should request any additional service medical records showing treatment of the veteran from February 12, 1991 to June 30, 1991, at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for Reiter's syndrome. 3. The veteran should then be afforded a special VA rheumatology examination in order to determine the nature and extent of any current disability, including Reiter's syndrome. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations, and should include all appropriate tests and evaluations. The physician should review the evidence in the claims folder, including any records showing treatment during service, and express an opinion as to the etiology of any arthritis symptoms. If the examiner determines that any disability pre-existed active duty, the examiner should express an opinion whether there was increased disability during service, and, if so, the degree of probability that an increase was due to the "natural progress" of the disease. It is essential that the claims folder, including a copy of this remand decision, be made available for review by the examiner prior to the examination. 4. The RO should review the record and ensure that all the above actions have been requested or completed. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran in any way, he should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case which summarizes the pertinent evidence, fully cites the applicable legal provisions not previously provided, and reflects detailed reasons and bases for the decision. He should then be afforded the applicable time period to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate. The veteran need take no action until he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional information and to ensure due process of law. No inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim as a result of this action. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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 action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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) (1994).