UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 98-259
F R ED E. D A V IS , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(Argued January

13, 2003 Dec ided Marc h 19, 2003 )
Sa nd ra Bo oth , of Columbus, Ohio, for the appe llant. Mary Ann Flynn , w ithwh om John H. Thompson , Acting Gene ral Counsel, and Ro n G arv in , Assistant Gener al Counsel, wer e on the plea dings, a ll of Washington, D.C., for the appellee

. Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and F ARL EY and G REENE, Judges

. GREENE, Judge : Veter an F red E. D avis appea led, t hroug h counsel, a Dec ember

3, 1997, Boa rd o f Ve t era

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision that denied his claim for service connec tion for substance a

buse as lac king le g al merit. The matter now returns to the Court a fter a rema nd from the U.S. Court of Appea ls f

or the Fe dera l Circ uit ( Fe dera l Circ uit), following this Court's August 1999 aff irmance of the B oard' s decision. Davis v. G ober , No. 00-7049, 2000 U.S. App. L EXI S 29635 (F ed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2000) (orde r issued as mandate) (r emoving case from F eder al Circuit argument cale ndar a

nd rema nding to this Court for fur ther proc eeding s consistent with He ns le yv . W est , 212 F.3d 1255 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000)). The Court has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a)

. For the re asons that follow, the B oard' s decision will be vac ated a nd the matter r emande d.

I. F AC TS Mr . D avis se rv e d o n a c tiv e duty in t he U. S. A rmy

fr om D e c e mbe r 1 97 0 unti l hi s h on or a ble discharg e in Marc h 1973. Record ( R.) at 8. The r ecor d on appea l (ROA) re flec ts that in J anuar y 1979 Mr. Davis re ported to a VA medical cente r (VAMC) to r ece ive treatment for alc ohol addiction.2

R. at 47-48. His medica l history taken at that time revea l ed a "3 2 y ear old . . . vetera

n . . . [who] admitted to an alcohol history of fifteen y ear s, with the last four y ear s being the most abusive." R. at 47. On Novembe r 12, 1986, he w as admitted to a VA MC inpatient rehabilitation prog ram for chronic alcohol and c ocaine depende nce. R. at 49-50. He was d i s ch ar ged on Dec ember 1, 1986, with a re port noting that his counselor fe lt he would "je [o] pardize the program a nd the prog ress of the other ve tera

ns" in the pr og ram if he rema ined in it. Id. I n O c tob e r 1 98 9, a

VA re g ion a l of

fi c e (R O) re c e ive d a re qu e st fr om M r. Da vis to r e op e n h is claim for service connec tion f or a foot condition, stating that he was " willing to re port now for any exam." R. at 40. The RO se nt him a formal application, which he re turn ed cl ai m ing se rvice

connec tion for stress and f or a me ntal condition. R. at 42-44. A De cembe r 1989 RO dec ision denied that claim on the basis that he did not have a cur rent diagnosis of post-traumatic stre ss disor der, ps y c ho sis , o r n e ur os is. R. at 74 -7 5. The deci si on no te d th a t hi s se rv ic e me dic a l r e c or ds (S MRs )

wer e not ava ilable and co u l d n o t be re constructe d, and stated that Mr. Davis' disability was " the

res ul t o f [ hi s] own wi ll ful mi sco nduct — co c a i n e a n d a l c o h o l abu se. " Id .; see also R. at 15, 17 (docume nts dated 1979 and 1987 indicatingSMRs had bee n sent from National Personnel Recor ds Center (NPRC) to R O in 1978 and could not be loc ated by NPRC or RO). I n September 1995, Mr . Davis submitted to the RO corr espondenc e disag ree ing w ith a denial of a c laim for ser

vice c onnection for

diabetes ( any

previous docume ntation of this claim is not of

rec ord). R. at 80-81. A t that time he also reque sted non-ser vice- connected bene fits and inquired abo ut th e st atu s of his cla im s for a foo t di so rder and for "sub st ance abu se. " Id. The RO tre ated the

corr espondenc e as a

claim for VA benef

its, a nd in Dece mber 1995 issued a decision finding , inter alia, that Mr. Da

vis' substanc e abuse was the r esult of willful misconduct, and, ther efor e, he w as not elig ible for a g rant of service connec tion. R. at 83-84. He f iled a Notice of Disag ree ment (R. at 89), and the RO issued a

Statement of the Case (SOC) (R. at 93-103)

. I n October

1996, M r. Da vis underwe nt a VA psychiatric examination. R . at 184-85. He
re late d to Dr . E rn e st C a sti llo tha t he ha d s tart e d d

ri nk inga s a

te e na g e r a

nd sta rt e d u sin g he ro in i n 1974. R. at 185. He a lso reporte d that he had be en " off a nd on" a methadone prog ram fr om "1973 or 1974" until 1981. Id. He told the examiner that he had been fre e of dr ug s since Mar ch 1996 and3

fre e of alcohol si nce 1989 or 1990. Id

. Dr. Castillo diag nosed him a s suffe ring from a de lusional disorder a nd insulin-dependent diabe tes mellitus. Id

. A Dec ember

1996 RO decision g rante d Mr. Davis non-se rvice -conne cted pe nsion but denied service connec tion for substance abuse. R. at 191-93. The RO issued a Supplementa l SOC (R. at 187-89) a nd Mr. Davis a

ppeale d to the Boa

rd (R. at 195-96) . In his appea l he stated: [W ]hi le in service clos e to s epar ation Iwas g iven a ur ine test and wa s found to be positive for morphine. I was then sent to the Hospital at F t. Knox for de tox ification and plac ed on methadone for a period of four or five y ear s. In other wor ds it carr ied over a fter se rvice , Iwas hooke d on the methadone that was supposed to cure me of my substance a

buse condition. R. at 195. Deny ing the claim in Dec ember 1997, the B oard f

rame d the issue as "[e]ntitl ement to service

c onne c tio n f

or su bs tanc e a bu se " and fo un d, a s a

matte r o f l aw, that Mr . D avis was not e nti tle d to benef its. R. at 1-4. The B oard state d: "The veter an' s substance abuse is of primary orig in, and the result of h i s o wn wi llful misconduct, and not subject to servic e conne ction." R. at 2. The B oard noted that no SMRs were pa rt of the c laims file and stated: Records of

post-servi ce VA treatment show that the veter an has be en tre ated a nd diagnosed with alcohol a ddiction; ch ro n i c a l co h o l an d co ca i n e d ep en d en ce ; s ubstance depende nce; c ocaine and alc ohol abuse; drugabuse, c ocaine and mar ijuana; and alcohol, opiate a

nd coca ine depe ndence . These treatment rec ords include no e vid e nc e that th e ve te ra

n' s v ari ou s a dd ic tio ns are no t of pr ima ry or ig in, or the re su lt of the ve te ra

n' s o wn wi llf ul m isc on du c t. R. at 4. Rely ing on Sa bo nis v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 426, 430 ( 1994), the B oard c oncluded that "[n]otwit hstanding the veter an' s st at em en t t hat his drugproblem beg an in military service , drug

a bu se is c on sid e re d to be of wi llf ul[- ]misc on du c t or ig in a

nd it m ay no t be se rv ic e c onne c te d a s a pr ima ry c on dit ion ." R. at 4. Mr . D avis a pp e a le d th e B oa

rd ' s d e c isi on

to t his Court

.

II. AN AL YSI S A B oa rd de te rm inatio n o n w he the r a pa rt ic ula r d isa bil ity wi ll b e ser vi ce conne c te d is a finding of fa ct that the Court re views u n d er t h e " clea rly err oneous" standard of

revie w. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1( a )( 4) ; Ru sso v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A pp . 46, 50 (1 99 6) ; Ho ro witz v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 217, 221 (1993). When re nderinga dec ision, the Boar d is require d to provide a written statement4

of the re asons or ba ses for its finding s and conc lusions on al l m at er i al issues of fa ct and law prese nted on the re cord. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ). Th e B oa rd mus t ide nti fy

the fi nd ing s it

de e ms
cruc ial to its decision and acc ount f or the evidenc e it finds persua sive or unper suasive. Se e Gi lbe rt v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A

pp . 49 , 57 (1 99 0) . " Th e state me nt m us t be a de qu a te to e na

ble a c la ima nt t o understand the prec ise basis for the Boa rd' s decision, as well as to fac ilitate revie w in this Court." Kay v. Principi , 1 6 Ve t

. Ap p . 5 2 9 , 5 3 2 (2 0 0 2 ) ( ci t i n g Al lda y v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 ( 1995)). Where the Boa

rd fails to me et this oblig ation, the Court is prec luded from eff ectively revie wing the adjudication. Se e Me e k

s v . B ro wn , 5 Ve t.App. 284, 28 8 ( 19 93 ); se e als o A rd iso n v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 405, 407 ( 1994) (holdingthat "an i n adequate re cord f rustrate s judicial review ")

. Ge ne ra lly , a

re mand is the a pp ro pr iate r eme dy whe re the B oa rd ha s f a ile d to pr ov ide an a de qu a te statement of r easons or

bases f or its determinations. See H ick s v. Bro wn , 8 Vet.App. 417, 422 (1995). Mr. Davis c o n te n d s th a t t h e B o ar d e r r e d in d e n yin g h is c la im

a s a matt e r o f la w . A t o r al argument, counsel for

Mr. Davis stated that the "claim i s not for se rvice connec tion for drugabuse," but r a th e r , " th e d is a

b il it y is th e s u

b s ta n c e a b u s e th at r e s u lt e d f

r o m th e in

- s e r

v ic e tr eatment of methadone." Mr. Davis a rgues that morphine i s a l ega l prescr iption drug a nd that there is no evidenc e that the in-se rvice detec tion of i t i n his sy stem demonstrated its use for other-tha

npresc ribed purpose s. He c ontends furthe r that the in-se rvice methadone tr eatment was presc ribed based on the prese nce of

morphine in his urine and that there is no evidence that he took methadone for an y p u rp o ses other tha n those presc ribed. In fac t, counsel stated at argument that she has knowledg e of a dditional medical re cords pe rtaining to Mr

. Davis' postservice methadone tr eatment by VA. Mr. Da

vis argu es that, beca

use there is no evidence that his disabilit y is the result of misconduct or the a

buse of dr

ug s, the Boa

rd er red in c oncluding that his b eh av i o r was will ful misconduct and, ther efor e, that his claim lac ked leg al merit. The B oard is cor

rec t that service connec tion cannot, as a matt er of

law, be grante d for primary substance a

buse. See 38 U. S.C. §§ 10 1( 16 ), 10 5, 11 10 ; 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 01 (2 00 2) ; Allen v. Principi , 237 F.3d 1368, 1370 ( Fe d. Cir. 2001). In this case , howeve r, t he R OA and the rea soning provided by

the B oard a

re insuff icient to permit the Court t o co n d u ct meaning ful judicial revie w. See Kay , 16 Vet.App. at 532-33. The a rgu m ent M r. Davis made to the B oard, the one counse l5

e mph a size s h e re , is that anydisability Mr. Davis now suf

fer s is the result of in-ser

vice metha done treatment by VA. Although the Boa rd noted that Mr. D avis " alleg es that beingprovided metha done in a detoxificati on prog ram re sulted in addiction," the Boa rd did not addre ss in any manner that claim, mere ly

concludingwithout the requisite rea sons or bases that his c ondition was of " primary

or ig in. " R. at 2. I n l igh t of c ouns e l' s su g g e sti on

a s to the e xiste nc e of

a dd iti on a l, p ur

po rt e dly

re le va nt V A m e dic a l r e c or ds pe rt a ini ngto M r. Da vis ' me tha do ne tr e a tme nt, and ba se d o n th e pa

uc ity of the re cord r elied upon by the Board, the Court is unable to revie w ef fec tively the B oard' s decision. Acc ording ly , that decision must be v a c a te d a n d the matter re manded f

or re adjudication. See A rdison, 6 Vet.App. at 409-10. We note that while this case w as on appe al, the Vet er an s C l ai ms Assistance Ac t of 2000 (V CA A) , Pu

b. L . N o. 10 6- 47 5, 11 4 St a t. 2 09 6 (No v. 9, 20 00 ), wa s ena c te d. Am on g oth e r t hin g s, the VC AA e lim inate d the we ll- g ro un de d- c la im re qu ir e me nt an d modi fi e d th e Se c re tary ' s d uti e s to notify and assist claimants. Se e ge ne ra lly VC AA , § § 3 , 4 , 7 . O n r e mand , M r. Da vis is en tit le d to any expanded notice a

nd assistance aff

orded by the VCAA. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103(a), 510 3A; Karnas v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 308, 313 (1991) ( "[W] here the law or regulation chang es af

ter a claim has been filed or re opened but be fore the administrative or judicia l appea l proce ss has bee n conclude d, the version mo[ re] favor able to [the] a ppellant should .

. . apply

unless Congr ess provided otherwise or

permitted the Sec reta

ry . . . to do otherwise a

nd the Secr etar

y did so.").

III . C ON CL USI ON Upon consider ation of the plea dings, a rguments prese nted by

the par ties, and review of the

rec ord, the Court holds that the B oard' s decision fa ils to fulfill the " rea sons or bases" require ment of 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) and that the ROA is inadequate for e ffe ctive judicial re view. See Kay , 16 Ve t.A pp . at 53 3; Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 56-57. Ac cording ly , the Dec ember 3, 1997, decision of the Boa rd is VACATED a

nd the matter is REMANDED

.