BVA9502551 DOCKET NO. 93-15 433 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder variously characterized as post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. T. Hutcheson, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran had active military service from August 1970 to May 1976. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter "the Board") on appeal from a March 1992 rating decision of the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Regional Office (hereinafter "the RO") which denied service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder and schizophrenia. The veteran has been represented throughout this appeal by the Disabled American Veterans. The veteran asserts on appeal that the RO erred in denying service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder as the claimed disability is etiologically related to his Vietnam War experiences which include witnessing the destruction of American ammunition dumps by enemy mortar fire. The accredited representative advances that the veteran received psychiatric treatment while imprisoned and at the Coatesville, Pennsylvania Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter "VA") Medical Center and requests that clinical documentation associated with such treatment be incorporated into the record. He contends further that this appeal should be remanded to the RO so that the veteran may supply additional information for the United States Army and Joint Environmental Support Group to use in verifying his alleged psychosocial stressors. In reviewing the record, the Board observes that the report of the February 1992 VA psychiatric examination for compensation purposes indicates that the veteran related having been treated for several years at the Coatesville, Pennsylvania VA Medical Center for his psychiatric symptoms and being incarcerated in mid-1990 after stabbing another individual. At that time, he was ordered to receive further psychiatric treatment. At the July 1992 hearing on appeal, the veteran testified that he had been treated at the Coatesville, Pennsylvania VA Medical Center and was currently participating in a post-traumatic stress disorder program at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania VA Medical Center. The report of an August 1992 evaluation by a board of two VA psychiatrists states that the veteran was receiving ongoing treatment at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania VA mental health clinic. The VA examiners diagnosed the veteran as suffering from schizophrenia and determined that the clinical findings were consistent with "a degree of organic brain disorder" and did not support a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The doctors recommended that the veteran undergo psychological and neuropsychological testing and additional psychiatric evaluation given his apparent organic brain disorder as it "cannot be excluded that organic brain changes are interfering with the full expression of post-traumatic stress disorder." The Board notes that neither the veteran's prison medical records nor all of his VA clinical documentation, including that reflecting treatment provided after December 1990, have been incorporated into the record. Additionally, the requested psychological and neuropsychological testing and psychiatric evaluation has not been afforded to the veteran. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (hereinafter "the Court") held that the VA's failure to conduct further evaluations and studies as recommended by the VA's own examiner constitutes a breach of its statutory duty to assist the veteran as provided for by the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991). See also Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991). A July 1993 statement from the United States Army and Joint Environmental Support Group conveys that additional specific information was needed from the veteran in order to verify his alleged combat experiences including the dates of the alleged mortar attacks, their locations and the identities of the participants. The veteran has not been requested to provide the additional information. In light of the VA's duty to assist the veteran in the proper development of his claim as mandated by the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 1991) and as interpreted by the Court in Hyder and Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92-93 (1990), this case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the accredited representative and request that the veteran provide further information as to his alleged combat experiences including the dates of the mortar attacks, their locations and the identities of the participants. Upon receipt of the requested information, it should be forwarded to the United States Army and Joint Environmental Support Group. The veteran should also be asked to identify the correctional facility in which he was incarcerated in mid-1990. Upon receipt of the requested information, the RO should then contact the identified facility and request that all available clinical documentation be forwarded for incorporation into the record. 2. The RO should then obtain all available VA clinical documentation pertaining to the veteran's treatment at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Coatesville, Pennsylvania Medical Centers, including that pertaining to treatment provided after December 1990, for incorporation into the record. 3. The RO should then schedule the veteran for VA psychological and neuropsychological testing in order to determine the current nature and severity of his psychiatric disability. Thereafter, the veteran should be afforded further psychiatric evaluation. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the Physician's Guide to Disability Evaluation Examinations. All indicated tests and studies should be accomplished and the findings then reported in detail. If a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder is advanced, the examiner should identify the specific psychosocial stressors underlying the diagnosis. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner prior to the examination. When the requested action has been completed, and if his claim continues to be denied, the veteran should be afforded a reasonable period of time in which to respond to a supplemental statement of the case. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration if appropriate. The veteran need not take any action unless he is further informed. The purpose of this REMAND is to allow for further development of the record. No inference should be drawn from it regarding the final disposition of the veteran's claim. 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 is appealable to the Court. 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).