93 Decision Citation: BVA 93-20565

 Y93 
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C.  20420

DOCKET NO.  91-49 282     )       DATE
          )
          )
          )

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition of the groin.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

V. Powell, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from May 1943 to September 1948.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter
Board) on appeal from a November 1990 rating decision from the
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Regional Office (hereinafter RO).  A notice
of disagreement was received in January 1991.  A statement of the
case was issued in June 1991.  A substantive appeal was received in
May 1991.  The veteran is represented by Disabled American Veterans.
That service organization submitted written argument in November 1991
and May 1992.  The Board remanded the case for further development by
the agency of original jurisdiction in August 1992.  A supplemental
statement of the case was issued in December 1992.  The case was
received and docketed at the Board in June 1993.  The case is now
ready for appellate review.

REMAND

The veteran contends that while serving on active duty he developed a
skin condition that erupted in his groin area.  He maintains that
this skin condition has periodically erupted since his discharge from
active service.  The veteran further contends that his skin condition
of the groin is associated with his service connected fungus
infection in both feet.

In reviewing the record, this panel of the Board notes that a section
of the Board remanded this appeal in August 1992, in part, to secure
treatment records from the Buffalo, New York, VA Medical Center from
October 1989 to the present.

It does not appear that an attempt was, in actuality, made to secure
such records.  Moreover, the veteran now refers to additional
treatment records which may be important to this claim.  Consistent
with the statutory duty to assist the veteran in proving his claim,
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991), this section believes an additional
attempt to secure clinical records is called for.

Accordingly, the case is being REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  An attempt should be made to secure 1965 and
1966 records of treatment from Dr. Eric Dreyfuss
identified by the veteran in his letter of
February 27, 1993.

2.  Outpatient, inpatient and emergency room
records pertaining to the veteran's care at the VA
Medical Center, Buffalo, New York from 1989 to the
present should be secured and associated with the
records on appeal.

When the above development has been completed, the case should again
be reviewed by the originating agency.  If the decision remains
adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished
a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afforded a reasonable period
to respond.  Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the
case should be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration, if appropriate.

The veteran need take no action unless he is further informed.  The
purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional evidence and no
inference should be drawn regarding the final disposition of the
claim.

BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
WASHINGTON, D.C.  20420

          JEFF MARTIN     IRVIN H. PEISER, M.D.

          E. W. SEERY

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 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.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1992).