BVA9503888 DOCKET NO. 93-12 441 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Horrigan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran retired from active duty in December 1991 after more than 20 years of active service. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 1992 rating action of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The veteran's representative has raised the issue of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss. This issue has not been certified and developed for appeal and is referred to the RO for all appropriate development. Only the issue of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include post-traumatic stress disorder, is before the Board for appellate consideration at this time. REMAND During a VA psychiatric examination in February 1992, the veteran related two in-service incidents in which he said that he had witnessed the death of two tank commanders when their tanks crushed them. He also related an October 1985 incident at Fort Carson, Colorado, in which he said that he had lost control of a tank and feared a fatal accident. After the psychiatric evaluation, a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder was rendered. In July 1992, the RO sent the veteran a letter in which he was requested to provide details regarding his stressor incidents. The veteran failed to respond to this communication, but he had recently moved and may not have received the July 1992 letter. In addition, although the service medical documents currently of record show no treatment for psychiatric complaints, the veteran in his December 1992 appeal to the Board indicated that he had received treatment for psychiatric complaints at Fort Carson, Colorado, and he thought that the records of such treatment were maintained separately at the Mental Health Clinic at that installation. The Board further notes that, on examination prior to separation, the veteran reported treatment at the Mental Health Clinic at Fort Carson during the period from April to June 1986. In view of the foregoing and given the duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim under 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a) (West 1991), this case is remanded to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should request the service department to provide all clinical records documenting the veteran's reported treatment at the Mental Health Clinic at Fort Carson, Colorado from April to June 1986. If no records additional records are received, the clinic should be asked directly for any such records and the response included of record. All additional records should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The RO should again contact the veteran at his most recently reported address, apparently 2062 Sunset Drive in Bradenton, Florida, and request that he provide specific information regarding the reported stressor incidents which have been associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. The veteran should be informed that it is vitally necessary to his claim that such information be provided in as much detail as possible to permit verification. The veteran's response should be associated with the claims folder. If no response is received from the veteran, his representative should be asked to assist in locating the veteran and afforded a reasonable time to respond. The RO should then attempt to verify any incidents reported with the service department. 3. Then, if any verified stressors are different that those reported on the February 1992 VA psychiatric examination, the RO should arrange for another psychiatric examination and provide the physician with those stressors which have been verified to determine whether they support a diagnosis of PTSD. Any further development deemed appropriate should be accomplished. Then, the RO should again adjudicate the veteran's claim. If the benefit sought is denied, he and his representative should be provided with a Supplemental Statement of the Case, including 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (1994), and afforded the applicable time to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for its' further consideration, if otherwise appropriate. By this remand, the Board intimates no opinion as to the outcome warranted in this case. No action is required of the veteran until he is so informed 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 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).