Citation Nr: 0735670 Decision Date: 11/09/07 Archive Date: 11/26/07 DOCKET NO. 04-38 070 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Robert W. Legg, Attorney at Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Rose, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to March 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2004 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied the veteran's application to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for PTSD and denied entitlement to special monthly pension on the basis of the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or by reason of being housebound. In January 2007, the Board denied both claims on appeal. The veteran subsequently appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In October 2007, a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion) was brought before the Court. In an Order dated in October 2007, the Court remanded the part of the Board's decision that declined to reopen a claim for service connection for PTSD for compliance with the instructions in the Joint Motion. The Order also dismissed the appeal of the special monthly pension claim. Thus, the only issue currently on appeal is whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for PTSD. 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 In the Joint Motion, it was noted that in 1998, the veteran identified the unit he was assigned to during the period he alleges he was involved in combat, and also provided the names of two friends from that unit who he stated were killed during that time period. The RO contacted the U.S. Army's Environmental Support Group to verify the veteran's stressors. The U.S. Army's Environmental Support Group forwarded the request to the Center for Research and Unit Records. The Center for Research and Unit Records responded that it was unable to verify the veteran's stressors due to a lack of specific information; however, that while it did not maintain morning reports for the period that the veteran claimed to have been in combat, these morning reports could possibly contain daily personnel actions such as wounded in action and killed in action, and that these records could be ordered from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). There is no indication in the record that any attempt has been made to contact NPRC to obtain these records. The Joint Motion indicated that the Board erred in determining that VA satisfied its duty to assist because potentially relevant evidence in the form of morning reports were identified in the record and no attempt was made to obtain or account for these reports. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and inform him that he may submit any other corroborating evidence he may have pertaining to alleged stressors experienced during service. The veteran should be advised that a meaningful research of his stressors will require him to provide the "who, what, where and when" of each stressor. Further, the RO should inform the veteran that she may submit any other evidence to verify his alleged stressors from military as well as nonmilitary sources, to include "buddy" statements and relatives. The veteran needs to specify the date of the claimed stressor event within a three month period or provide a detailed description of the event with an approximate date. The veteran should also be asked to provide more specific information, if possible, regarding witnessing the deaths of Michael Williams in 1966 and Lawrence Nixon in 1967. He stated in April 1998 that these two were killed in action while serving in the same unit as the veteran. 2. The RO should then forward the veteran's statement, along with the April 1998 statement, to: Director, National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), ATTN: NCPMR-O 9700 Page Ave., St. Louis, MO 63132 NPRC should be requested to provide any information available which might corroborate the veteran's alleged stressors, including morning reports, and any other sources that may have pertinent information. To the extent these records are not obtainable or unavailable, such circumstances should be documented by the RO. Thereafter, make a determination as to which stressor(s) claimed by the veteran has(ve) been verified. 3. If, and only if, a claimed stressor(s) is(are) verified, arrange for an examination of the veteran by an appropriate VA examiner to determine the diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder that is present. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner for review in conjunction with the examination; the examiner should indicate on the report that it has been reviewed. All necessary special studies or tests, to include appropriate psychological testing and evaluation, should be accomplished. If a diagnosis of PTSD is appropriate, the examiner should specify (1) whether a verified stressor was sufficient to produce PTSD; (2) whether the remaining diagnostic criteria to support the diagnosis of PTSD have been satisfied; and (3) whether there is a link between the current symptomatology and verified stressor sufficient to produce PTSD. Any opinions expressed by the examiner must be accompanied by a complete rationale. 4. Following the completion of the development requested above, the claim should be readjudicated by the RO. If this does not result in a complete grant of all benefits sought by the veteran, the veteran and his attorney should be provided a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The SSOC must contain notice of all relevant actions taken on the claims for benefits, to include a summary of the evidence and applicable law and regulations considered pertinent to the issue currently on appeal. 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). _________________________________________________ THOMAS J. DANNAHER 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) (2007).