BVA Case 91-1682: Ptsd

Because the Court concludes that the BVA failed to fulfill its statutory duty to assist appellant in developing his claim for service connection for PTSD pursuant to 38 U.

In a rating decision dated November 7, 1973, the RO determined that the "[e]vidence submitted does not constitute new and material evidence to reopen [appellant's] claim for [service connection] of [his] nervous condition.

The Board determined that a remand was necessary because the SOC issued in June 1989 indicated that the issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, currently diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia, was not adjudicated by the 4 RO as part of the veteran's reopened claim for PTSD, and because the veteran's new representative had not been provided with an SOC and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the SOC.

Appellant's representative stated: We contend that the examination conducted on November 23, 1988 should be declared as incomplete in that it did not address .

The Board determined that an additional remand was necessary because the SSOC issued to appellant and his representative in March 1990 did not include the legal provisions used by the originating agency in determining service connection for a psychosis.

at 101-02) was new and material for purposes of reopening appellant's claim.

The Board denied service connection, however, noting: [B]ecause the evidence does not show the presence of an acquired psychiatric disorder in service or within one year following the veteran's separation from service and because there is no evidence showing the presence of [PTSD], we find that a reasonable basis for granting service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include [PTSD], has not been presented.

Further, the Board determined that another medical examination of appellant on the issue of service connection for PTSD was not warranted; the Board noted: .