BVA9505867 DOCKET NO. 93-14 757 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Hartford, Connecticut THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mark J. Swiatek, Counsel REMAND The veteran's active duty from September 1985 to April 1989 has been verified. The veteran's DD Form 214 also shows 5 months and 20 days of prior active service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 1992 decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Hartford, Connecticut The veteran contends, in essence, that his current psychiatric disability was initially manifested during active service. The service medical records show that in July 1986 he was hospitalized for alcoholism and substance abuse. In August 1987, he was evaluated by a psychologist for complaints of feeling depressed and losing control. The records initially received did not include a psychiatric diagnosis. Another report at the time mentions psychiatric referral to rule out major affective disorder. The records provided did not include the report of a separation medical examination. VA medical records show no psychiatric complaint was made on a June 1989 examination. There are reports of a hospital admission in July 1990 for alcohol dependence and March 1991 for depressive reaction with suicidal features. In July 1990, it was reported that he had a history of dysthymic disorder and had been referred for admission. In December 1992, a VA psychiatric examiner's diagnoses included cocaine and alcohol abuse, in remission, and major depression, possibly with psychotic features. The examiner stated that an adequate diagnosis could not be made without psychological testing and personality testing. The examiner also stated that the veteran's depression and irritability began to be treated in 1987 and that he was treated for alcohol abuse as an inpatient in June 1990. In November 1993, the representative requested that the case be returned to the RO so that an appropriate medical evaluation of the record could be obtained. In February 1994, the veteran submitted a copy of a page from an August 1987 psychological evaluation in service, not previously of record, that shows a provisional diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. A February 1994 statement from the examining psychologist was also submitted. Major depression was reported after January 1994 VA hospitalization. In view of the foregoing, and to ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the Board is persuaded that further development is warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers who treated the veteran for a psychiatric disorder since service. After securing the necessary release, the RO should request all records that have not previously been obtained. 2. The RO should attempt to obtain through official channels any additional service medical records for the veteran that may be available. Of particular significance is the separation medical examination. The RO should request that all original service medical records be provided. 3. The veteran should then be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and extent of any psychiatric disorder found. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review before the examination. The examination should include appropriate psychological testing unless deemed to be unnecessary by the examiner. The examiner should be requested to provide an opinion regarding the etiology of any psychiatric disorder found and the etiologic significance, if any, of the complaints reported in service to any current psychiatric disorder. The examiner should provide a rationale for all opinions expressed. 4. After the development requested has been completed to the extent possible, the RO should readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought is not granted, a supplemental statement of the case should then be prepared and furnished to the veteran and his representative. They should be provided the applicable period in which to respond. Thereafter, in accordance with the proper appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any final outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified by the RO. 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 deter- mination. 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. 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) (1994).