Citation Nr: 0703276 Decision Date: 02/02/07 Archive Date: 02/14/07 DOCKET NO. 05-04 390 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Reno, Nevada THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. T. Sprague, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served in the United States Marine Corps from September 1971 to December 1973, to include active duty in Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2004 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Reno, Nevada. The veteran was afforded a Video Conference Hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2006. A transcript is associated with the claims folder. The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the appellant if further action is required. REMAND The veteran contends that his service in Vietnam included exposure to combat with enemy forces, and that this has caused him to develop PTSD. The record contains a competent opinion of a clinical psychologist that diagnosed the veteran with PTSD and linked his disorder to his alleged combat service in Vietnam. Thus, if the veteran's combat service can be verified, his stressors will be conceded and service connection will be granted. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.304(d), 3.304(f). The record does not, however, at present contain enough information to verify combat service. The RO denied the veteran's claim on the basis of his claim of combat duty was not verified by the service personnel records and the record failed to verify his claimed in- service stressor of being subjected to weaponry fire. The RO noted and the record reflects that the veteran did not receive a Combat Action Ribbon (CAR) or other medal or decoration evincing combat duty. The veteran's DD Form 214 lists his Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) as Machine Gunner, and includes award of the Vietnam Service Medal, with a note annotating service in the Republic of Vietnam from May 1972 to October 1972. However, his MOS of Machine Gunner did not take effect until December 1972, which was after his service in Vietnam. While the RO was correct in pointing out that the veteran's classification as a machine gunner for the first time, as a primary duty, was not until December 1972, the Board notes that there is a distinction between a primary duty and an MOS, and the fact that other primary duties were listed while the veteran was in Vietnam does not necessarily mean that the veteran was not in his primary MOS during the same period. Indeed, the veteran reported and the record reflects that he served as a "shore party man" attached to various Marine Corps units in Vietnam, where his duties could have potentially involved use of a machine gun and/or combat with the enemy. The fact that the veteran was not decorated for combat action is not, in and of itself, dispositive on whether or not the veteran served in combat with the enemy. Further development is warranted to attempt to verify the veteran's claimed combat duty and, is such cannot be confirmed, the RO must attempt to verify the alleged stressor of being exposed to hostile weaponry fire. For example, there is no indication that the RO secured the veteran's unit histories. Further development is thus required. See Daye v. Nicholson, No. 05-2475 (U.S. Vet. App. November 22, 2006). As to the veteran's allegation of exposure to weaponry fire, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held in Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124 (2002), that corroboration of every detail of a stressor under such circumstances, such as the claimant's own personal involvement, is not necessary. See also Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307 (1997). In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that the RO must contact the Department of the Navy/United States Marine Corps via the Marine Corps Historical Center (or other appropriate agency) and, for the purposes of verifying the veteran's alleged combat service or exposure to weaponry fire, attempt to locate histories of his units for the dates listed in the personnel records. The veteran must also be informed that he should provide any and all relevant evidence, to include lay or service buddy statements, either in his possession that he may be able to obtain, including letters sent in service to family members or friends, and past or present statements from fellow Marines, which might aid in the corroboration of his alleged combat activities. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Review the record and ensure compliance with all notice and assistance requirements set forth in the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA). See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2006). 2. Contact the Department of the Navy/United States Marine Corps via the Marine Corps Historical Center (or other appropriate agency) and, for the purposes of verifying the veteran's alleged combat service, attempt to locate histories of the following units for the dates listed: H&S Co. BLT 2/9 3rd Marine Division (Rein.), FMF (May 23, 1972-June 27, 1972), to include participation in OPERATION SONG THAN (6-72) on May 24, 1972. C Co. 3rd SP Battalion/ 3rd Marine Division (Rein.), FMF (June 28, 1972- July 17, 1972). H Btry. 3rd Bn/12th Mar 3rd Marine Division (Rein.), FMF (July 18, 1972- October 7, 1972). 3. The veteran is to be informed that he may obtain lay statements, including but not limited to testimonials of in-service "buddies," and that he may present other evidence such as letters written home to friends and family from Vietnam, which might lend some support for his claimed in-service stressors. The veteran should be given appropriate time to collect these statements and submit them before the claim is re-adjudicated 4. After obtaining the response from the Marine Corps Historical Center (or other appropriate agency) and the veteran, review the entire record and re-adjudicate the claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. If the claim remains denied, issue an appropriate supplemental statement of the case and forward the case to the Board for final adjudication. The veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2005). _________________________________________________ R. F. WILLIAMS Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of the veteran's appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)).