BVA9503300 DOCKET NO. 93-08 405 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Ripley P. Schoenberger, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from October 1973 to November 1976. This appeal arises from a July 1991 rating decision by the RO. One of the issues developed for appellate review was entitlement to an increased rating for the residuals of a gunshot wound to the right elbow, evaluated as 30 percent disabling. However, by a rating decision of January 1993 the RO classified the residuals of the gunshot wound to the right elbow as follows: residuals of a gunshot wound to the right elbow with right medial nerve damage, evaluated as 30 percent disabling; limitation of motion of the right elbow, evaluated as 20 percent disabling; and a tender scar on the right elbow, evaluated as 10 percent disabling. The combined evaluation for the residuals of the gunshot wound to the right elbow was increased from 30 percent to 50 percent. The veteran has not disagreed with the current 50 percent evaluation assigned for the residuals of the gunshot to the right elbow. Accordingly, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) assumes she is satisfied and the issue of entitlement to an increased evaluation for the residuals of a gunshot wound to the right elbow has been withdrawn. This appeal is limited to the issue listed on the title page. REMAND The veteran maintains that she currently has a psychiatric disorder that either began in service or is due to the residuals of the gunshot wound to the right elbow. It is unclear from the record whether or not the RO has considered entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder as being secondary to a service connected disability. The Board notes that on a VA mental disorder and neurological examination, performed in April 1992, there is a hand written note that states "Claims file has been reviewed including the AVAMC summary of 9/9/90. This is primarily a personality problem. Diagnosis mixed personality disorder with substance abuse". However, the copy of the September 9, 1990, VA hospitalization report associated with the claims folder is incomplete. In addition, it appears that not all of the veteran's medical records have been associated with the claims folder. In the September 9, 1990, VA hospital report the veteran stated that she was first treated in 1979 at the VA Medical center in Miami. Her second treatment was in 1983 at the VA Medical Center in Tuskegee, and her third hospitalization was in 1984 at Columbus Regional Hospital. Records from VA facilities in Miami, Florida; Biloxi, Mississippi; Tuskegee, Alabama; and Decatur, Georgia, have been associated with the claims folder. However, the records from Columbus Regional Hospital have not been associated with the claims folder. In addition, on her substantive appeal (VA form 1-9) she stated she had received treatment for a nervous condition from Dr. Norman P. Gardner. However, copies of Dr. Gardner's office notes have not been associated with the claims folder. A diagnosis of dysthymic disorder was made during a period of VA hospitalization in 1984. To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should take appropriate steps to obtain copies of the office notes of Dr. Gardner, and a copy of the 1984 hospital report from the Columbus Regional Hospital. When the records are received they should be associated with the claims folder. 2. The RO should take appropriate steps to obtain copies of the veteran's VA outpatient treatment records and associate them with the claims folder. 3 The veteran should be afforded a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of any acquired mental disease. Complete psychological testing should be accomplished, if deemed necessary. A social survey should be undertaken in order to elicit a complete clinical history from the veteran. Based on her/his examination and a review of all of the medical records, including the service medical records, the psychiatric examiner should express an opinion as to the medical probability that any acquired mental disease began in service, or is the residual of the gunshot wound to the right elbow. The claims folder should be made available to the examiners for review before the examinations. 4. After the development requested above has been completed to the extent possible, the RO should again review the record. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appellant and her representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. The appellant need take no action unless otherwise notified. BARBARA B. COPELAND 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) (1993).