BVA9505029 DOCKET NO. 93-08 987 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant, his wife, and a VA psychologist ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. J. Alibrando, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran served on active duty from June 1969 to February 1973. This appeal arises from a June 1991 rating decision in which the RO denied service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The veteran contends that he suffers from PTSD as a result of his wartime experiences in Vietnam. According to his testimony In August 1992 and in a stressor statement received by the RO in November 1991, the veteran was assigned to the 18th Brigade, 864th Battalion at Whiskey firebase during his tour in Vietnam. In approximately June 1970, he was riding in a convoy of trucks with a soldier named Bickford, who asked the veteran to switch places in the convoy vehicle with that man's brother. After trading places, the veteran saw the truck he had just left blown up and he viewed the charred body of the man he replaced. He also described other stressful events. The RO, in denying the veteran's claim, indicated that the claimed stressors could not be verified. However, the Board concludes that there is sufficient information regarding the convoy incident to attempt to verify that stressor. The RO should contact the U.S. Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group and request verification of the contended stressor. In August 1992, the veteran testified that he had received treatment for PTSD in 1976 from a Dr. McNealy and that he had also been hospitalized for treatment of PTSD that same year. He indicated that he unable to obtain copies of Dr. McNealy's records because the doctor had retired. However, no attempt has been made to ascertain where the veteran was hospitalized and to obtain those records. The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1994). The U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing available facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining treatment records to which the veteran has referred. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). The RO should obtain the 1976 hospital records and any current treatment records not contained in the claims folder. Finally, the VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations which are potentially applicable to the assertions and issues raised in the record, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusion. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). Under the circumstances of this case, we find that additional development is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and request him to furnish the name and address of hospital where he received treatment for PTSD in 1976. He should also be requested to furnish the names and addresses of all health care providers, including all VA facilities, from whom he has received treatment for PTSD from August 1992 to the present time. Where appropriate, consent forms for the release to the VA of any private medical records should be obtained from the veteran. Thereafter, the RO should obtain legible copies of all identified treatment records, including all VA outpatient and hospital records, and associate them with the claims folder. 2. The RO should contact the U.S. Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group, 7798 Cissna Road, Springfield, Virginia 22150 and request verification of the alleged stressors as reported by the veteran in the stressor statement received by the RO in November 1991. A photocopy of the veteran's stressor statement should be forwarded to the Support Group along with the request for verification of the stressor. The response from the Support Group must be associated with the claims folder. 3. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all of the requested development has been completed in full. If any development is incomplete appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. When the above developments have been completed, the case should be reviewed by the RO. If the decision remains adverse to the appellant, he and his representative should be afforded a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. C.W. SYMANSKI 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).