Citation Nr: 0723665 Decision Date: 08/01/07 Archive Date: 08/15/07 DOCKET NO. 04-31 504 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David Traskey, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from August 1971 to August 1973. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a decision of August 2003 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (RO). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the veteran if further action is required. REMAND In this case, the veteran contends that he has PTSD as a result of his service in the Navy during the Vietnam Era. The veteran served as an ordinance mechanic on the U.S.S. America. Specifically, the veteran reports in a letter to the RO dated July 2002 that his brother was critically injured on October 1, 1972 while serving in the Navy aboard the U.S.S. Newport News. The veteran indicates that doctors were unsure whether the veteran's brother would survive, so on October 5, 1972, the veteran was flown to the U.S.S. New Orleans to be with his brother while he recuperated. The following day, the veteran and his brother were purportedly transferred to Da Nang, where the veteran was subsequently "put with VMFA 333, witch [sic] was the beach det. from the U.S.S. America." In another letter to the RO dated March 2004, the veteran stated: I was put with my brother after he was hurt. They did not know whether he was going to live or die. When I saw my brother, it did not look good for him. He had over 50% of both his lung's [sic] burned out. . . . He had a hole in his throat to breath [sic] by. He had tube's [sic] all in him. I did not even know my brother, by the way he looked. He did not look like my brother. This hurt me real bad. The veteran's record of assignments indicates that he was transferred from the Naval Training Center in Great Lakes, Illinois to the U.S.S. America (CVA 66) on October 5, 1971. The purpose of the transfer is listed as "FORDU (SEA)." A copy of the veteran's leave account fails to mention his claimed transfer to the U.S.S. New Orleans or to Da Nang. Transfer orders suggest that he never departed the U.S.S. America until he was released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserves. Correspondence from the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to the RO verifies that an explosion occurred on the U.S.S. Newport News on October 1, 1972. The report provided by the JSRRC reflects that the explosion resulted in the eventual deaths of 20 men as well as injury to an additional 36 men. The JSRRC was unable to locate documentation to verify that injured crew members from the U.S.S. Newport News were taken to Da Nang for treatment or that the veteran was flown to either the U.S.S. New Orleans or to Da Nang to be with his brother. The Board notes that the reply from the JSRRC did not specify whether the veteran's brother was one of the 36 men injured as a result of the explosion on the U.S.S. Newport News. Moreover, the Board finds that the veteran was not informed that he could submit alternate sources of records or "buddy" statements in support of his service-connection claim. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should prepare a letter to the veteran, asking the veteran to submit a statement from his brother which may be able to corroborate the veteran's claimed in-service stressor and/or provide insight into the veteran's current condition. The veteran should also be asked to obtain copies of service personnel records or service medical records from his brother that would confirm the brother's injury aboard the U.S.S. Newport News and verify the veteran's recollection of subsequent events, including the transfer to the U.S.S. New Orleans or U.S.S. Newport News and to Da Nang. The RO should also notify the veteran that he can submit alternate sources of records, such as "buddy statements" in support of his claim. "Buddy statements" refer to letters or other correspondence from other veterans who served with the veteran in this case. Such service "buddies" may be able to corroborate the veteran's in-service stressors and/or provide insight into the veteran's current condition. The veteran should also be asked to clarify when, where, and how the service men he listed in his March 2004 statement [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted]) were injured/killed and whether he witnessed their injuries/deaths. 2. The RO should then prepare a letter asking the United States Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to provide any information that might corroborate the veteran's alleged stressors in service. In particular, the RO should provide the JSRRC with the name of the veteran's brother and ask the JSRRC to confirm whether the veteran's brother was injured in the October 1, 1972 explosion on the U.S.S. Newport News. Moreover, any available unit records and unit histories, particularly those from the veteran's claimed service in Da Nang, should be requested through the appropriate channels. VA will end its efforts to obtain records from a Federal department or agency only if VA concludes that the records sought do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. 3. If there is at least one objectively confirmed stressor (or sufficient evidence of combat such that a stressor does not need to be independently verified), the RO should also make arrangements with an appropriate VA medical facility for the veteran to be examined by a VA psychiatrist in order to ascertain the nature of all psychiatric disabilities and proper diagnoses thereof, to include PTSD as set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. 1994) (DSM-IV). Any psychological testing should also be conducted at that time. If the psychiatrist concludes that the veteran meets the criteria for a PTSD diagnosis, the psychiatrist is asked to express an opinion as to whether the PTSD is at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent or greater possibility) related to the veteran's military service, and specifically, to a confirmed stressor. (Note: only a confirmed stressor, or a combat stressor not needing to be independently verified, can serve as a viable basis for the diagnosis). The claims folder should be made available to the psychiatrist for review. 4. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the veteran's claim. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the veteran should be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). The SSOC must contain notice of all relevant actions taken on the claim for benefits, to include a summary of the evidence and applicable laws and regulations considered pertinent to the issue currently on appeal. The SSOC should also include a discussion of any and all relevant evidence submitted by the veteran's representative. An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. 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. 2006). _________________________________________________ S.S. TOTH 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 your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2006).