BVA9404103
DOCKET NO.  92-07 264     )       DATE
          )
          )
          )

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) disability evaluation
for a gastrointestinal disorder.

2.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) disability evaluation
for residuals of injury to the left eye with old corneal scar.

3.  Entitlement to a compensable evaluation based on multiple
service-connected disabilities rated as noncompensable.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. Gottfried, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from February 1960 to April 1963.

This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the
Board) on appeal from rating decisions from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA), Boston, Massachusetts, Regional
Office (hereinafter RO).  The RO, in a February 1990 rating decision,
granted service connection for a history of
gastritis/gastroenteritis, and decreased vision in the "right" eye,
secondary to trauma, and assigned a noncompensable evaluation for
both disorders.  The RO continued the noncompensable evaluation
assigned for the gastrointestinal disorder in a rating decision of
February 1991.  A notice of disagreement was received in March 1991.
The RO, in a March 1991 rating decision, continued noncompensable
evaluations for the gastrointestinal disorder and residuals of a
"right" eye injury, and denied entitlement to a compensable
evaluation based on multiple service-connected disabilities rated as
noncompensable.  A statement of the case on the issues of entitlement
to an increased (compensable) disability evaluation for a history of
gastritis/gastroenteritis, a compensable rating for multiple
noncompensable service-connected disabilities, and an increase
(compensable) disability evaluation for decreased "right" eye vision
due to trauma was issued in April 1991.  A substantive appeal was
received from the veteran in April 1991.  The RO, in a December 1991
rating decision, continued the noncompensable evaluation for a
history of gastritis/gastroenteritis, and, based on adjusted rating
action, denied service connection for a right eye condition as not
found on the last examination, and continued a noncompensable
evaluation for what was classified as residuals of injury to the
"left" eye with old corneal scar.

A supplemental statement of the case was issued in January 1992 on
the issues of entitlement to an increased (compensable) disability
evaluation for a history of gastritis/gastroenteritis, a compensable
rating for multiple noncompensable service-connected disabilities,
and an increased (compensable) disability evaluation for decreased
"left" eye vision due to trauma.  The case was received at the Board
in May 1992.

The Board remanded the case for development in March 1993.  The RO,
in a rating decision of September 1993, denied compensable
evaluations for a gastrointestinal disorder, residuals of injury to
the left eye with old corneal scar, and multiple service-connected
disabilities rated as noncompensable.  A supplemental statement of
the case was issued in September 1993.  The case was received at the
Board in November 1993.

REMAND

The veteran stated in his letter dated in October 1993 that he was
never notified that he was to report for a VA examination in
September 1993 as reported by the RO.  It is noted that the record
does not include a copy of a letter or any other communication
establishing that the veteran was notified of scheduled examination
dates.  The veteran has given no indication that he is unwilling to
report for the VA examinations requested in the Board's remand of
March 1993.  This matter needs to be addressed in the RO.  Measures
also need to be taken in the RO to obtain records of any VA
outpatient treatment since May 4, 1993, the date of the most recently
dated treatment note of record.

The Board stated in the March 1993 remand that the record included a
report of medical history relating to a service enlistment
examination, but not the actual report of examination.  It was
specifically requested that efforts be made in accordance with VA
Manual M21-1 to obtain a copy of the veteran's enlistment
examination.  The record does not show that the RO took any action on
the requested development.  This matter needs to be addressed in the
RO.

The Board stated in March 1993 that it was clear from the veteran's
appeal statements that he was claiming that he had residuals from
injuries to both eyes during service, and that the record did not
show that the RO informed the veteran of the adjusted rating action
in December 1991 that determined that it was the left eye that should
have been originally service connected, and not the right eye for
which service connection was originally granted.  The Board stated
that the veteran had not been issued a supplemental statement of the
case that included a discussion of the issue of entitlement to
service connection for residuals of a right eye injury, and that the
matter needed to be addressed to ensure that the veteran was provided
due process of law.  The record does not show that the RO reviewed
the issue of service connection for residuals of a right eye injury,
as requested by the Board in March 1993.  This matter needs to be
addressed in the RO.  In an October 1993 statement, the veteran again
referred to problems with both eyes.

The Board is mindful of the VA's duty to assist the veteran in the
development of facts pertinent to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a)
(West 1991).  The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held
that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining and developing
available facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining
medical records and obtaining adequate VA examinations.  Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Board is of the opinion
that additional assistance is required.  The case is REMANDED to the
RO for the following:

1.  Efforts should be made in accordance with VA
Manual M21-1 to obtain a copy of the veteran's
enlistment examination.  All records obtained
should be associated with the record.

2.  Appropriate measures should be taken to
obtain copies of all VA outpatient treatment
records that may be available and not already
associated with the claims folder.  The claims
folder includes VA outpatient treatment notes
dated through May 4, 1993.  All records obtained
that are not already associated with the claims
folder should be so incorporated.

3.  After all of the development requested above
is completed, the veteran should be scheduled
for special eye and gastrointestinal
examinations to determine the nature and extent
of all gastrointestinal and eye disorders
present.  Efforts should be made to ensure that
the veteran is informed of the date and location
of the scheduled examinations.  The examinations
should include all indicated tests, studies and
pertinent X-rays.  The examiners should be
requested to review the record and interview the
veteran in order to obtain a pertinent history
to assist in the examinations.

After all of the development has been completed, the RO should review
the issues that were certified for appellate review, and the issue of
service connection for residuals of a right eye injury.  All
applicable legal authority, including laws and regulations should be
considered.  This should include consideration of the increased
rating issues in relation to Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589
(1991) which discusses a need to review the veteran's medical history
and relevant sections of 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4 in increased rating
cases.

After review of the issues in the RO, the veteran should be issued a
supplemental statement of the case that fully addresses all
applicable laws and regulations and provides a full explanation for
all action taken.  He should then be granted a reasonable opportunity
to respond before the record is returned to the Board for further
appellate review.

The purpose of this remand is to procure additional clarifying
information, ensure that all relevant issues are fully addressed, and
to ensure that the veteran is provided the full due process of the
law.  No action is required of the veteran until he receives further
notice.

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

          WILLIAM J. REDDY        HARRY M. McALLISTER, M.D.

          M. SABULSKY

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) (1993).