UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR VE TER AN S CL AI M S

No. 97-1884
R OB E R T A. B ECK , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R
. 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
(De cided June 27, 2000 )
J. Mitche ll Lani er , o f M on c ks Cor ne r, Sou th C aro lin a , w a s o n th e ple a din g s fo r t he a pp e lla nt.
Le i g h A

. B radley , G e ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Carolyn F. W ashington , De p u t y

As s i s t an tGe n er al C o u n s el , al l o f W as h i n gt o n , D. C

. , we re o nt h e p l ea d i n gs for the a ppellee.
Be fore NEB EKER, Chief Judge , and KRAMER and HO L DAWAY, J ud ge s. NEB EKER, Chief Judge : The appe llant, Robert A. Bec k , ap p ea ls from a June 25, 1997, Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA) de cision that denied a s not w ell g rounded his re opened claim of ser

vice c onnection for

a psy chiatric disorder. B ased on the parties' briefs and the rec ord on appea l, the Court will vacate the Boa rd' s decis i o n d en y i ng Mr. B eck ve tera n status for his second period of se rvice , and re mand for r eadjudication of the matters of his e ligibility for VAbenef

its and his claim for ser

vice c onnection.

I. F AC TS M r. Be ckh adt wo p er i o d s o f s er v i ce i nth e U

. S

. Ar m y
. He re ce i v edan h o n o rab l e d i s ch ar ge from the f irst period, which e x tended f rom J anuar

y 18, 1971, to J anuar

y 18, 1974. Record ( R.) at 22. His s e c o n d p e r io d , f

r o m M ay 2 , 1 9 7 4 , to Ja n u ar y 1 2 , 1 9 7 6 , w a s te r

mi n a te d u n d e r o th er tha n honorable (OTH) conditions. R. at 23. Charg es ag ainst him during the latter per iod (for w hich he

ac c e p t edt h e O T H d i s ch ar ge i nl i eu o f s p ec i al co u rt -m ar t i al p ro ce ed i n gs ) i n cl u d edd i s o b ey i n g a2

lawf ul o rd e r ( on

tw o o ccas io ns in S e pte mbe r 1 97 4) , f a ili ngto r e po rt

a t th e pr e sc ri be d ti me to h is appointed plac e of duty

in October

1975, and two p er i o d s o f several da y s' absenc e without leave (AWOL ) duringNovember and De cembe r 1975. R. at 107, 109, 110. I n executing a "Request for Di sc ha rg e fo r t he Go od of the Se rv ic e ," he a c kn ow le dg e d tha t he h a d c omm itt e d a se ri ou s o ff

e ns e and that he ha d no excuse for be ing AWOL , but w rote that he had " rea sons." R. at 114. He stated that he ha d " se ve re fa

mil y pr ob le ms, " and that he " wo uld do wh a te ve r i t take s" to b e re un ite d w ith his w i fe a nd daug hter. Id . He ha d, in fac t, gone to the trailer home wher e his wife a nd daug hter

wer e living, an d h i s fi rst AWOLperiod e nded whe n he wa s located the re a fter a neig hbor complained of a dis turbanc e. R. at 107. He voluntarily returne d to his unit to end his second AWOL period. R. at 107. His service medical r ecor ds (SMRs) from his f irst pe riod of ser

vice showe d no signific ant medical pr oblems, either phy sical or menta l; however , a medica l report f ro m t h at p eriod noted a his tor y of he a d in jur y , dizzin e ss or fa int ing sp e lls , an d pro ble ms with tea c he rs
. R. at 26 -2 9. On his

ree nlistm ent re port of medica l history , prepa red in Apr il 1974, the box labeled " nervous trouble of any sort" is c hecke d and the phy sician' s summary section of the r eport states, " [T] reated for ne rvous ag e 10 [sic] ." R. at 66-67. SMRs dated in October 1975 reflected that Mr. Be ck had c omplained of havinginsomnia for a pe riod of four wee ks, fee ling nervous, and being jittery ; he wa s diag nosed with anxi ety

. R. at 80. The mental status e valuation conducte d prior to sepa ration fr om his second period of se rvice indicated that ( 1) the e x aminer note d no signific ant mental illness; (2) Mr. B eck was menta lly

responsible; (3) he wa s able to distinguish rig ht from wrong; (4) he was able to adhere to t he ri g ht; and (5 ) he ha d the me nta l c a pa c ity to un de rs tand and pa rt ic ipate in bo ard

pr oc e e din g s. R. at 62. Following Mr. B eck' s discharg e, a V A administrative dec ision, dated in November 1976, deter mined that he wa s entitled to V A benef its for his first period of se rvice ; it further de termined that he wa s barr ed fr om VA bene fits for his second pe riod of ser vice. R

. at 9 0

. I n April 1977, duri nga VAho sp ita lizatio n, he wa s d ia g no se d w itha c ute an d und if fe re nti a te d s c hizo ph re nia . R. at 92-93. Dur ing a

VA h o s p i talization from J anuar y 1978 to March 1978, the diag nosis was "sc hizophrenia, chronic undiffer entiated ty pe." R. at 307. I n J uly 1978, Mr. Beck w as hospitalized3

at the South Carolina State Hospital and his treating phy sicians re corde d a diag nostic impression of schizophrenia, par anoid ty pe. R. at 132-33. I n J anuar y 1979, Dr. W ay

ne Brave rman wrote t hat t he appellant was seve rely disabled and that he had pr obably

been so f or the " past three or four

y ear s." R. at 125, 296. I n Marc h 1980, Dr. P. Ri c ha rd Gunte r n ote d th a t a lth ou g h th e a pp e lla nt d id n ot e la

bo ra te as to e xac tly

wh e n h is psy chiatric difficulties beg an, he did state that when he was in the Army he once went AW OL beca use he ha d a vision that his daug hter was being "pla ced out on the street." R. at 294. I n J une 19 80 Mr . B e c k fil e d an ini tia l app lic a tio n for se rv ic e c on ne c tio n for " ins omn ia -a nxie ty and pa ra no id schizophrenia." R. at 137. The claim was denie d. Id

. Stated as the ba sis for the denia l was the lac k of evide nce of

a ner vous condition during the appellant' s first period of se rvice , and the pr esenc e of "e vidence to show onset" dur ing the period from which he rec eived the O TH dischar g e. Id . H e did not appea l (R. at 214), but continued to exhibit sy mptoms of a ser ious psy chiatric disorder. See, e .g., R. at 143. I n Fe bruar

y 1 9 8 1 , t h e Social Secur ity Administration concluded that the a ppellant had been disa bled since July 1 9 7 8 an d grante d disability benef its. R. at 244. I n 1993, Mr. B eck attempted to re open his VA c laim for service connec tion. Dr. Raul Paez wrote to VA on his behalf, statin g that Mr . B e c k' s sy

mpt oms pr ior to dis c ha

rg e fr om se rv ic e we re , in fa c t, the on se t of his ill ne ss which wa s diag nosed in April 1977. R

. at 1 5 1. Mr. B eck pr ovided sworn testimony at a VA persona l hear ing in Oc tober 1993. R. at 182-93. I n Marc h 1996, the B oard de termined that the claim had been re opened a nd rema nded it for fu r t h er d ev el o p m en t , i n cl u d i n g a p s y ch i at ri c e x am i n at i o n
. R

. at 2 1 3 -2 0

. S p ec i fi ca l l y , t h e B VA 's

r e ma n d d ir e c te d th e V A r e g io n a l o f f ic e ( RO ) to o b ta in c o p ie s o f a ll o f M r
. B e c k ' s tr eatment a nd social sec urity

claim re cords. These doc uments were to be associated with the claims folder . Once t h i s h adb ee nd o n e, t h e B o ar d d i re ct edt h e f

o l l o wi n g: Th e ve te ra

n s ho uld be a ff or de d a VA ps y chiatr ic e xami natio n to de te rm ine the c ur

re nt e xten t and

like ly e tio log y of his c hr on ic schi zophrenia. All nec essar y testing in this reg ard should be acc omplished. The claims folder should be made a v ai lable to the e xami ne r f

or re vie w. B a se d o n h is/

he r re vie w o f t

he c a se , it

is reque sted that the examiners express an opinion a s to the m ed ical probabili t y

t h at an y cu rr en t l y d em o n s t ra t ed

s ch i z ophrenia

was pre sent during the veter an' s second pe riod of military duty fr o m May

2,4 1974[,] to J anuar

y 12, 1976, as claimed by the veteran. The opinion should conta in

c omplete re asons or ba ses for the conclusions re ache d. R. at 217-18 (e mphasis in origina l). Once the re cords and examination were c omplete, the RO wa s to mak e a d e n o v o a d

ju d ic a ti o n , w h ic h if a d v e r s e to M r
. B e c k , w a s to tr ig g e r is s u an c e of a supplemental statement of the case , with oppor

tunity to respond, and ultimately return of the matter to the Boa

rd. Id. I n his J une 1996 re port of the B VA-dire cted psy chiatric examinat i o n , t h e VA examiner (identified as "T

. Gar dner" (R. at 225)) stated that Mr. B eck w as suffe ring from a sc hizo affec tive dis or de r t hat be g an w iththe ini tia l " br e a k" in Sep te mbe r 197 5 tha t led Mr . Be c k to see a do c tor in Oc tob e r 1 97 5. R. at 22 9. Th e e xami ne r o pin e d th a t th e re a so n for the a pp e lla nt' s AWOL

wa s h is

s c h i z o p h r e n i a ' s m an i f

e s t a t i o nw i t h e x t r e m e p ar an o i a a n d e x t r e m e t h o u gh t d i s o r d e r s ymp t o m a t o l o g y. R. at 230. The examiner fur ther c oncluded that the ve tera n' s sy mptoms had been pres ent

" c on tin uo us ly " sin c e Oc tob e r 1 97 5. R. at 23 1. He state d, " I n o the r w or ds , th is i s th e same ill ne ss th at w as p res ent in 19 75 ." Id

. He ref err ed to the initial, honora ble three -y ear period of service , and

c on c lud e d, " I t is un lik e ly that a per so n w ho se rv e d f or thr e e y e ars wi tho ut p ro ble ms w ou ld s ud de nly [g o] A WOL

wi tho ut r e a so n. Th e re a so ns in my op ini on are c le arl y

sc hizo ph re nia

manif e sti ngits e lf with extreme para

noia and extreme thoug ht disorder sy mptomatology ." R. at 230. He also stated that Mr. B eck' s failure in 1975 to r evea l to the Army doctor his " strang e unusual thoug hts that he was having [was based on] his fear that the doctor w ould think that he [ was] unfit for duty ." R. at 229- 3 0

. T h e e x am i n er c h a r ac t er i z edt h i s b eh av i o r a s "a c o m m o nre ac t i o n " o f p eo p l e w i t h M r. Be ck 's level of pa

ranoia and thoug ht disorder. R. at 230. I n September 1996, the RO denied service c onnection for schizophrenia, conc luding that Mr. Be ck wa s not insane at the time he w ent AWOL . R. at 375-76. I n the decision now on appe al, the Boa rd conc luded t hat M r. Beck had s ubmitted evidenc e adequate to reopen his cla im, but that upon revie w of the r ecor d as a w hole, the cla im was not well g rounded. R. at 3. The Boa rd found that no competent e vidence had bee n submitt ed that the ap p ellant was insane at the time of his AWOL offe nses, or that his cur

rently demonstrated para

noid sc hizophrenia was due to dise ase or injury that

occur red in or w as ag g ravated by service . R. at 16. This appea l followed.5 II. AN AL YSI S Th e thr e sh old

de te rm inatio n in

thi s mat te r is whe the r Mr . Be c k is a " ve te ra n" wh o is e lig ibl e fo r V A be ne fi ts fo r any c on dit ion inc ur re d duri ng his se c on d pe ri od of mil ita ry se rv ic e . 3 8 U .S. C. § 1 01 (2 ); se e Ho lm es v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 38, 40 ( 1997). The te rm " veter an" is defined unde r section 101(2) as someone who has serve d "in the active milit ary , naval, or air ser vice a nd who was dis c ha rg e d o r r e le a se d th e re fr om u nd e r c on dit ion s o the r than di shon or a ble ." Un de r 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .1 2( d) (4 ) ( 19 99 ), a

dis c ha rg e un de r O TH c on dit ion s f or wi llf ul a nd pe rs ist e nt m isc on du c t w ill rende r a claimant ineligible for veter ans benef its. Se e Str uc k

v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 145 ( 1996). A disabili t y cl ai m t h at was pre viously the subject of a

final denia l based on the c hara cter of the claimant' s discharg e is s u b j ec t to reope ning unde r 38 U.S.C. § 5108. D'A mi c o v . W est , 209 F.3d 1322, 1326-27 (F ed. Cir. 2000), vacating 12 Vet.App. 264 (1999). Acc ording ly , the B VA did not

err when it addr essed Mr. B eck' s claim as an attempt to reopen, a nd deem ed the c laim reope ned based on the prese ntation of new a nd materia l evidence in the form of he aringtes t i m o n y and the 1993 repor

t of Dr. Pae z. R . at 151, 182-93, 215. Mr. B eck doe s not dispute VA' s conclusion that the ac ts that led to his a cce pting the O TH dis c ha rg e in l ie u o f c ourt -m art ia l pr oc e e din g s are , o n th e ir fa c e , the ty

pe of a c ts that c on sti tut e "w illful and persistent misconduct." Howeve r, p u r s u a nt t o 3 8 U.S.C. § 5303(b) and its implementing regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.354(b) (1999) , a ser vice membe r who is insane at the time of the ac ts that led to an OTH discha

rg e re tains elig ibilit y

for ve tera

ns benef its. He argues that the re cord demonstrates that he was insane at the ti me of these acts and, thus, should retain his elig ibilit y for benef its, including ser

vice c onnection, bec ause sy mptoms and behavior manif ested duringservice

wer e the ear ly manifestation of his current psy chiatric disorder. Se e Zan g v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 246, 25 2- 54 (1 99 5) (e xiste nc e of ins anit y , a s de fi ne d in se c tio n 3. 35 4( a ), a t ti me of c omm iss ion

of a c t, neg ates intent so as to pre clude a ct from c onstitut ing w illful mi sconduct unde r sec tion 3.1(n)).
Section 3.354(a) define s an " insane pe rson" as one w ho exhibi ts, due to disease, a more or le ss prolong ed deviation from his normal method of beha vior; or who interf

ere s with the peac e of soc iety ; or who has so depar ted. . . from the a cce pted s tandar ds of t he communit y
. . . to which he belong s as to lack the6

a da pta bil ity to m a ke fu

rt he r a dju stm e nt t o th e so c ia l c us to ms of the c omm

un ity in which he r esides. Id. I f VA det er mines that, at the time of the c ommissi on of an of fense that led to an OTH dis c ha rg e , th e c la ima

nt w a s " ins ane ," that pe rs on is n ot p re c lud e d f

ro m an a wa rd of VAbe ne fi ts based o n t h at p eriod of se rvice . The de finition of insanity in section 3.354(a) is broad. Menta l illness is not identical to "insa nity ," and t here need be no causa l connec tion betwee n the insanity and the m isconduct. See Zang, supra. The a cts leadingto the discharg e and the insanity must, however, be conc urre nt. Id

.; Str ing ha m v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 445, 448 ( 1995). The deter mination whether insanity exis ted at the r eleva

nt time is factual, and the Court review s the Boa rd' s determination under the "clea rly err oneous" standard. Id. at 448-49. The Court w ill not overturn a fa ctual dete rmination of the B VA if the re is a pla

us ibl e ba sis in the re c or d to supp or t it, and it i s su pp or te d b y an a de qu a te state me nt of

re a so ns or

ba se s f or re je c tin g e vid e nc e fa

vo ra ble to t he c la ima

nt. 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (2 ); Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 53, 56- 57 (1990). Be fore rea ching this fac tual deter mination, howeve r, where a claim has be en re opened, the Secre tary must determine whe ther the c laim is we ll g rounded. Se e El k ins v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 209 (1999); (e n banc) W

int e rs v . W

est , 1 2 V e t.A

pp . 2 03 , 2 08 (1 99 9) (e n b anc ). He re , th e B oa rd , in

essenc e, conc luded that the cla im of service connect ion was not well g rounded be cause Mr. B eck had not established " veter an" status during his second period of service " by submitt ing c ompetent medical e vidence that he wa s insane at the time of his AWOL offe nses." R. at 2-3, 17. The ultimate conc lusion whether a claim is well g rounded is a que stion of law. See H ensley

v . W est , __ F.3d __,__, slip op. at 13-14, No. 99-7029 (May 12, 2000). The unde rlying e lements of

a we ll-g rounded c laim involve "f actua l matters the dete rmination of whi c h b y th e ag ency

fac t-finder s is ent it led on revi ew t o s ub st ant ial defe renc e." Id. at 15. As the Court held in Cal uz a v . B ro wn , for a cla im to be well g rounded, there g ener ally must be (1) medical evidenc e of a curr ent disability ; (2) medical, or , in c erta in c ircumstance s, lay evidenc e of a disease or injury in service ; and (3) me dical

e v i d e n c e o f

a n e x u s b e t w e e nt h e a s s e rt e d i n - s e r v i c e i n j u r y o r d i s e a s e an d

t h e c u r r e n td i s a b i l i t y. 7 Vet.App. 498, 596 ( 1995), a ff 'd , 78 F.3d 694 ( Fe d. Cir. 1996) (table)

. Mr. B eck indisputably

me e ts th e f

ir s t c r it e rion: he cur

rently has a se rious psy chiatric disorder. Moreove r, medica l evidence in the rec ord, which links c o n d u ct d uring service to both his OTH7

dis c ha rg e and hi s prese nt p sy c hiatr ic c on dit ion , s a tis fi e s th e se c on d a nd thi rd e le me nts of

a we llg rounded c laim under Caluza. The B VA discounted the medical opinions favor able to Mr. B eck f or four rea sons. First, no medical opinion contempor aneous w ith the offe nses diag nosed the disorde r. R. at 12-13. Sec ond, the Octobe r 1975 Mental Status Examination re p o rt n o t ed "no c omplaints" and that Mr. Be ck

re po rt e d h e wa s " feel in g we ll ." R. at 15 . T hir d, the B oa rd e mph a size d, in 1 98 0 a

ps y c hiatr ic

e xami ne r h a d d e sc ri be d M r. B e c k a s b e ing" c on sid e re d a po or his tor ian" wh o " re la te d h is p sy c hiatr ic history in a very poor manner "; and, acc ording to the Boa rd, the e x aminers who opine d that his going AWOLin service was the ear ly manifestation of his prese nt psy chiatric disorder " did not have the benef it of first-hand clinical eva luation of sy mptomatology

proxi mate to the time of the e vents," and based c onclusions on Mr. Be ck' s--the "poor historian's" --a ccount of his own s y mptoms. R. at 14-16. The B VA conc luded that " the on ly evidenc e of rec ord i ndicating that the appe llant was insane at the time he had c ommitt ed the AWOL offe nses ar e his own asse rtions of having had para noid fee lings." R. at 16 (e m p h asi s added) . Four th, citing Struck, su

pra , the B VA conc luded that the medica l op ini on s f

a vo ra ble to M r. B e c k w e re " inc omp e te nt" and that his cla im w a s, a c c or din g ly , n ot w e ll g rounded be cause he had not submitted competent medica l evidence to support his claim for vete ran status

. R. a t 2- 3, 16 ; see Struck , 9 Ve t.A pp . at 15 5- 56 (B VAdid

no t e rr in r e je c tin g , o n th e me ri ts,

as incompetent single favor able medical opinion by private phy sician wher e opinion was based on his tor y pr ov ide d b y

Mr . Stru c k a

nd on oth e r s e c on da

ry so ur c e s, wh e re his tor

y wa s d e mon str a

bly inacc urate as to key

fac t, and wher e phy sician had not re viewed r eleva nt material in cla ims file). Th e th res ho ldfor

a wel l- groun ded cla im is "uni qu e andun iq uel y lo w." Hensley

, __ F.3d at

__ , s li p o p. at 1 1. Th e cl aim needon ly be "pl aus ib le. " Id . at

_

_ , s l i p o p
. at 12. As the re levant

" statu tes , rule s, a nd

c a se s" make c le ar, in d e te rm ini ngwh e the r a c la ima nt h a s me t th e re qu isi te threshold, VA " must acce pt as true" the evidenc e submitted in support of a cla im "[ex cept] when the evidentiar y asser tion [ other than in a

g overnme nt rec ord] is i nhere ntly incre dible or whe n the fa ct

ass ert ed i s b ey on d t he co mp ete nce o f t he p ers on mak in g the a ss ert io n. " Id . at __, slip op. at 13-14 (c i t i n g Ro bin e ttev . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 69, 75- 76 (1995))

. Her e, the B oard in its Marc h 1996 rema nd decision concluded t hat M r. Beck' s claim had be en reope ned base d on Dr. Pae z's opi nion "that the veteran' s schizophrenia bega n in service ." R. at 216.8

On re mand to the RO, it issued specific instructions to the VA examiner to conduct " [a] ll necessa ry testing" of Mr. B eck, to r eview the claims folder , and to express an opini on on "the curr ent extent

an d l ikely etiology of [Mr. Be ck' s] chronic schizophrenia." R. at 218-19. He w as to provide a n opinion, supported by

adequa te re asons or ba ses , as to whethe r the c urre ntly demonstrated schizophrenia wa s prese nt during Mr. Beck' s second period of military service

. Id . The e x aminer opined that schizophrenia wa s prese nt, and that M r. Beck' s g oing A WOL was the e arly manifestation of the sc hizo ph re nia

dia g no se d s ho rt ly

a ft e r s e rv ic e . R. a t 22 9- 30 . T he B VA re ferred to t he se conclusions in the ex amination repor t, but conclude d that the report was "incompete nt" a s evidenc e. The re port is favora

ble to Mr. B eck' s claim. I n its analy sis, the Boa rd stated that its " cruc ial deter mination . . . is whether the a ppellant has pre sented c ompetent medical evidence that he w as insane at the time of his A WOL offe nses." R. at 13. The B VA also noted that it "is not require d to acc ept the appellant' s evidenc e and is e ntitled to weig h the cre dibilit y of that evide nce." R. at 14. I t conc lu d e d

th a t " th e V A e xa mi n e r ' s d ia g n o s is w a s b a s e d o nth e a p p e ll an t' s r e p o rt o f

p ar a n o ia , thought inser

tion, auditory

hallucinations with command thoug hts and voices to hur t h i m self and others that [led] t o nervousness and insomnia [for] which he ha d g one to see a doctor in October 19 75 ." R. at 15

. Th e B oa

rd su mma ri zed its e va luatio n o f t

he fa vo ra ble me dic a l e vid e nc e a s f

oll ow s: "I n fac t, the only

evidenc e of r ecor d indicating that t h e ap p el l an t was insane at the time he ha d committed the AWOLoffe nses ar e his own asse rtions of having had par anoid fe eling s." R. at 16. The Court holds that the B oard imper missibl y an al y z ed the weig ht and cr edibility of the medical r eports at the threshold s tag e of deter mining whether Mr. Bec k' s claims wer e we ll gr ounded. I n its rece nt prec edential de cision in He ns le y , s up ra , the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit he ld that the elements unde rly ing a deter mination of whether

a cla im is well grounde d are fac tual finding s, but cited with appro v al t his Court's holding conce rning the pre sumption of

cre dibilit y

for f avora ble evidenc e at this pre- merits stag e. __ F.3d at __, slip op. at 13-14. Her e, the Boa rd fa iled to apply

the pre sumption. Th e Court

a lso no te s th a t, e ve n if

the B VAha d b e e n r e vie wi ngthe c a se on the me ri ts, it failed to address stateme nts in the VA examiner' s repor t that were incontestably

based on material oth e r t ha n M r. B e c k' s ow n a sse rt ion s. F or e xamp le , un de r " Psy c hiatr ic Hi sto ry ," the e xami ne r s ta te s, "T here is a repor

t f rom the discharg e summary [from a 1977 hospitaliz ation at the Charle ston VA9

Hospital ] that lists num erous outbursts of a ng er, inc luding those r equiring jail, anxi ety , fea r and inability to car e for

himself for t h e p er i o d immediately following his discharg e fr om the United State s A rmy ." R. at 22 5. Th e e xami ne r a lso state s, " Hi s f ir st p sychi atr ic sy

mpt oms a c tua lly app earedin Oct ob er of

19 75 andare d ocu men ted in hi s C -fi le. " Id . The re port contains a numbe r of other re fer ence s to documents, and to the examiner' s observation of Mr. Be ck ( see, e .g., id. at 228- 29 ) , an d t h e B VA d o es n o tre co n ci l e t h es e r e fe re n ce s wi t h i t s co n cl u s i o nt h at t h e ap p el l an t 's

" a sse rt ion s" are the so le ba sis fo r t he op ini on s o ff

e re d b y a ll r e c e nt m e dic a l e xami ne rs
. Up on re mand , the Se c re tary

sh a ll f ulf ill his du ty

to a ssi st, pr ov idi ngfu

rt he r p sy c hiatr ic examinations, i f wa

rra nted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a)

. Mr. Beck is entitled to submit further evide nce and ar g ument and t o h av e his claim re adjudicate d expeditious ly

. See Ve te ra ns ' B e ne fi ts I mpr ov e me nts A c t , P u

b

. L

. N o
. 1 0 3

- 4 4 6 , § 3 0 2 , 1 0 8 S t a t

. 4 6 4 5 , 4 6 5 8 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( f o u n d a t3 8 U .S. C. § 5101 note).

III . C ON CL USI ON Acc ording ly , the J une 25, 1997, Boa rd decision is V ACATED, and the matters of whe ther Mr. B eck is to be gra

nted veteran status for his second period of service by rea son of insanity at the time he committed the offe nses t hat l ed to his OTH discharg e, and whether he is entitled to service

connec tion for a c hronic psy chiatric disorder, are REMANDED for adjudication ac cordingto law.