BVA9503773 DOCKET NO. 93-08 802 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul, Minnesota THE ISSUE Whether the veteran is competent for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) purposes. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Reichelderfer, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from November 1966 to January 1970. This case arises from the rating decision of June 1992 from the St. Paul, Minnesota, Regional Office (RO). REMAND The veteran contends, in essence, that he is competent to manage his financial affairs. After a review of the record, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is of the opinion that additional development of the evidence is required prior to further consideration of this case. The Board notes that the VA examination reports of January 1991, March 1992, August 1992 and the January 1993 make reference to the veteran being a "vulnerable adult" under the laws of Minnesota. The Board notes that there is no judicial or administrative determination regarding vulnerable adult status contained in the claims files, nor is there an explanation of what exactly this status means. The Board believes that if an administrative or judicial determination under state law has been made concerning the veteran's vulnerability, that this finding would be of probative value in assessing his competence. The record indicates that since the veteran was determined to be incompetent, that he has been receiving his VA benefit payments directly under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 13.56(a) (1993). Additionally, a VA Form 119 in the claims file indicates that a field examination was conducted in January 1993, however, the record does not contain detailed findings of that examination. The Board believes that the records of the Veteran Services Officer of the RO pertaining to the supervision of the veteran's benefit payments and the report of the January 1993 field examination would be of probative value in assessing the competence of the veteran. It is also noted that the last psychiatric examination of the veteran was conducted in January 1993. The Board believes that a current psychiatric assessment of the veteran's competence for VA purposes would be of significant value in deciding this case. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that the duty to assist veterans in the development of facts pertinent to their claims, under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993), as set forth by the Court in Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990), requires that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) accomplish additional development of the evidence if the record currently before it is inadequate. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following: 1. The RO should ascertain if a judicial or administra-tive determination has been made concerning whether the veteran is a "vulnerable adult" under the laws of Minnesota. If such a determination has been made, the RO should obtain a copy of that determination along with the relevant evidence considered in rendering that decision. An explanation of "vulnerable adult" status and it's significance should be obtained. 2. The Veterans Services Officer of the RO should provide copies of pertinent records related to the supervision of the veteran's direct payment of his VA compensation benefits, including the results of the January 1993 field examination and any other field examinations of the veteran that have been conducted since July 1992. These materials should be associated with the claims folder. 3. Upon the completion of the above, the RO should request that the veteran be afforded a VA psychiatric evaluation, by a psychiatrist that has not previously examined or treated him during the last five years, to assess his competency to manage his financial affairs. All appropriate tests and studies should be conducted at this time. The examiner should be requested to present all findings, and the reasons and bases therefor, in a clear, comprehensive, and legible manner on the examination report. The claims folders are to be made available to the examiner prior to his or her evaluation of the veteran. 4. Following completion of the above, the RO adjudication activity should again review the veteran's case, and determine if he should be considered incompetent for VA purposes. If the decision remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case, and with a reasonable period of time within which to respond thereto. The case should thereafter be returned to the Board for further consideration as appropriate. The veteran need take no action until he is so informed. The purposes of this REMAND are to obtain additional evidence and to ensure compliance with due process considerations. LAWRENCE M. SULLIVAN 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 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).