92 Decision Citation: BVA 92-08404 Y92 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 91-45 389 ) DATE ) ) ) ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Margaret L. Peak, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from February 1969 to September 1970. This matter came before the Board on appeal from a June 1991, Jackson, Mississippi regional office (RO) rating action. A notice of disagreement was received on July 11, 1991. The statement of the case was issued on August 19, 1991. The substantive appeal was received on September 6, 1991. The appeal was received at the Board on October 9, 1991 and docketed on October 11. The veteran is represented by AMVETS in this matter and that organization, after having received the file on October 17, submitted additional written argument to the Board on December 30, 1991. REMAND The veteran served in Vietnam from July 1969 to September 1970. In October 1970, he was granted service connection for residuals of malaria and shell fragment wounds of the right shoulder and right groin, which are all currently rated as noncompensably disabling. In the same action a claim for service connection for defective hearing was denied as not having been shown by the record. In March 1991, the veteran reopened his claim, requesting increased disability ratings for his service-connected disorders and service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); for a skin disorder, which he attributed to exposure to Agent Orange while in Vietnam; for damage to his knee caps and for a knife wound to the left rib cage. The June 1991 decision of the RO continued noncompensable ratings for the veteran's service connected disabilities, granted service connection for PTSD and rated it as noncompensably disabling, deferred the issue of residuals of Agent Orange exposure pending additional legislative instructions, denied service connection for dermatophytosis, for a condition of the knee caps and for residuals of left rib cage knife wound. The decision reiterated the prior denial of service connection for defective hearing. A VA Form 21-4138 was received at the RO on July 11, 1991 and accepted as a notice of disagreement on July 18. This was signed "AMVET N.S.O. for claimant" and disagreed with the rating of PTSD as noncompensably disabling. The veteran sent his own notice of disagreement, received August 9, in which he questioned the denial of service connection for his knee caps and the knife wound and the noncompensable evaluations of the service-connected disabilities. He implied that recent medical records were available that would substantiate his claim to a compensable rating for malaria. Notwithstanding receipt of this notice of disagreement, on August 19, the RO issued a statement of the case which addressed only the issue of a compensable evaluation for PTSD. The substantive appeal, written by the veteran's spouse and received on September 6, like the veteran's notice of disagreement, raised all of the issues involved in the June 1991 decision. The RO decision of September 14 confirmed only the PTSD issue and the VA Form 1-646, received thereafter, addressed only that issue. The veteran's national representative on the other hand, when presented with the certified issue of increased rating for PTSD, discussed only the need to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for hearing loss and to conduct appropriate audiological examinations to further that claim. It is apparent that the veteran wishes to pursue at least the issues he raised in his most recent claim, and for this reason it is incumbent upon the RO to supply him with a statement of the case which addresses the reasons for denial. In order to complete the record, the Board is of the opinion that further development is desirable. The case is therefore REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should contact the veteran through his representative to ascertain his wishes with regard to his previously denied claim of service connection for hearing loss. 2. If he wishes to reopen that claim, the RO should include in a supplemental statement of the case, information about the prior denial, information about notice of the denial which was given to the veteran at the time, laws and regulations concerning the finality of prior unappealed rating determinations, and discussions of the effect of a prior denial on a current claim for service connection and the necessity of submitting new and material evidence as defined by the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals to reopen his claim. 3. Regardless of the foregoing, the RO should issue a statement of the case which addresses all of the issues decided in the June 1991 decision to assist the veteran in his appeal. When this development has been completed the appellant should be afforded an opportunity to respond. The record should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. No action by the appellant is required until further notice is received. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 ANTHONY FAVA CHARLES E. EDWARDS, M.D. H. H. CLARK Under 38 U.S.C. § 7262 (formerly § 4052, recodified in 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.