BVA9508356 DOCKET NO. 93-13 190 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michele M. Florack, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from November 1939 to October 1945 and from June 1946 to March 1956. REMAND The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) finds initially that the veteran's claim is "well grounded" or plausible within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) therefore 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, 3.159 (1993). That duty includes obtaining medical records and medical examinations where indicated by the facts and circumstances of the case. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). The veteran contends that he currently has a psychiatric disorder that is due to service. The service medical records show that the veteran was examined for enlistment in November 1939, for discharge in October 1945, for re-enlistment in January 1946, and for discharge and re- enlistment in March 1950 without any findings of psychiatric abnormality or disability. During the veteran's second period of service, he was seen in September 1951 for nervousness related to severe injuries sustained by his sister and brother-in-law. In April 1955, the veteran sought psychiatric help for a "personal conduct" problem. On psychiatric consultation in May 1955, the veteran complained of a compulsion to gamble, drink, and lie. He feared that his behavior was endangering his marriage. A "chronic neurotic depressive problem" of at least four years' duration was identified, said to be a recurrence of a depressive reaction the veteran had following his mother's death when he was a child. Psychotherapy was recommended, but the veteran declined to follow that recommendation. On examination for separation in March 1956, there were no complaints or abnormalities relating to a psychiatric condition. Between 1956 and 1980, the veteran was examined various times for other unrelated disabilities. There was no mention or allegation of any psychiatric findings during that time. In March 1980, J. L. Grieshop, M.D., indicated that the veteran had been under his care for various other disabilities when he referred the veteran to another doctor for evaluation of "acute depression and emotional problems." However, no further evidence of psychiatric evaluation or treatment is of record until 1992. On VA special psychiatric examination in October 1992, the veteran reported that his childhood was characterized by significant juvenile delinquencies, including truancy, vandalism, and running away from home. He described himself as a "wild" and uncontrollable child. The veteran reported that while in service he was frequently involved in fights, heavy drinking, and was absent without leave (AWOL). After service, in 1975, he was convicted of knifing another man in a fight and served five years in prison. In 1987, the veteran was convicted of shooting another man and sentenced to serve ten years in prison. The veteran stated that he had numerous physical problems, and that he preferred to be alone. He had occasional dreams about World War II, his most traumatic experience being the liberation of a German prison camp. On objective examination, the veteran was cooperative, his speech was logical, coherent, and goal directed. His mood was mildly depressed. He denied any hallucinations, delusions, or preoccupations, and there was no evidence of any major thought disorder. He was oriented in three spheres. His recent and remote memory were unimpaired. He admitted to having a bad temper and becoming physically aggressive when angry. Intellectual functioning was normal for his education, and his sleep and appetite were described as fair. Dysthymic disorder and antisocial personality disorder were diagnosed. It is noteworthy that antisocial personality disorder is not a disease or injury within the meaning of the applicable legislation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c) (1994). To establish service connection for a claimed disability, the facts, as shown by evidence, must demonstrate that a particular disease or injury resulting in current disability was incurred in wartime service, or in the case of a preexisting injury or disease aggravated by wartime service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991). It is not clear whether the "chronic neurotic depressive problem" identified in service in May 1955 is related to the currently diagnosed, dysthymic disorder. Thus, pursuant to the statutory duty to assist, this case is REMANDED to the Regional Office (RO) for the following development: 1. The RO should ask the veteran to identify the names, locations and dates of any sources of any psychiatric treatment, evaluation, hospitalization or testing that he may have received between 1956 and the present. Those records should be obtained and associated with his claims file. 2. The veteran should be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and probable etiology of his current psychiatric disorder. The claims file and a copy of this Remand should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner before the examination. If, in the opinion of the examining psychiatrist, psychological testing is indicated, such testing should be done. The examiner should be asked to render an opinion as to whether or not the "chronic neurotic depressive problem" noted in service is etiologically related to any currently diagnosed disorder and whether any symptoms in service are related to any current psychiatric disorder. The nature of any such relationship found should be explained in detail. When the above-requested development is completed, the case should again be reviewed by the RO. If the veteran's claim remains denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case. After they have had an adequate opportunity to respond, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if in order. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain clarifying data. GEORGE R. SENYK 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).