BVA9407041 DOCKET NO. 93-01 071 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for allergic bronchial asthma. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a cerebrovascular accident. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Lois N. Petzold, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from December 1942 to January 1945. This appeal arises from a September 1991 rating decision of the Boston, Massachusetts, Regional Office (RO) which denied reopening of the veteran's claim for service connection for allergic bronchial asthma and denied service connection for cerebrovascular accident. The veteran appears to raise the issue of entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes in his July 1991 Application for Compensation or Pension. This claim is not inextricably intertwined with the current appeal, and it is referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND The veteran argues, in part, that the additional evidence he has submitted is new and material, so as to warrant reopening of his claim of entitlement to service connection for bronchial asthma. He has also asserted in an August 1991 statement that he had blood pressure problems in service, thus making an implied claim for service connection for hypertension. Because hypertension is a recognized cause of cerebrovascular accident, this issue is inextricably intertwined with the issue of entitlement to service connection for cerebrovascular accident and must be addressed by the RO. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) has held that a claim which is inextricably intertwined with a pending claim must be adjudicated prior to a final order with respect to the pending claim. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991). Thus, the issue of whether the veteran is entitled to service connection for hypertension must be adjudicated prior to an appellate decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a cerebrovascular accident. The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a) (West 1991). The Court has held that the duty to assist the veteran in developing available facts and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining available medical records which are relevant to the claimant's appeal and obtaining adequate VA examinations. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). In the case of Ivey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 320 (1992), the Court stated that even when the appellant did not request that pertinent medical records be obtained, when a claimant puts the VA on notice that such records exist, then the VA's duty to assist the claimant in developing a claim is triggered. In the case at hand, the veteran has submitted a March 1944 service medical record showing that he received allergy treatment from March 1944 to July 1944 at Brooke General Hospital. This record was not previously associated with the claims file. Although the RO requested these records from the National Personnel Records Center in May 1975, they never followed up on the Center's request to provide the time of the alleged treatment in order to facilitate the search for these records. Also, the RO should attempt to obtain the records pertaining to treatment of asthma and hypertension during the several year period following the veteran's discharge from service. Finally, the VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations which are potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusion. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). In order to comply with the Court mandates discussed above, the Board finds that additional assistance is required. The case is REMANDED to the RO for action as follows: 1. The RO should contact the veteran and explain to him that alternate documents may be submitted to substitute for service medical records as per VA Adjudication Procedure Manual, Manual M21-1, Part III, Paragraph 4.25 (c) and 4.29 (b) (October 6, 1993) previously numbered as 4.06 and 4.07. 2. The RO should request the service department to search for the veteran's treatment records from Brooke General Hospital, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, from March through July 1944. 3. The veteran should be asked to provide the names and addresses of all medical providers from whom he has sought treatment for five years after service for allergic bronchial asthma and hypertension. After obtaining the necessary release from the veteran, the named doctors should be contacted and requested to provide complete clinical records concerning all such treatment of the veteran. 4. The RO should adjudicate the issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension. Thereafter, the claims should be reviewed by the RO. If the claims continue to be denied, the veteran and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case to include the issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension, and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 * I. S. SHERMAN C. W. SYMANSKI *38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (West 1991) permits a Board of Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business without awaiting assignment of an additional member to the Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section proceed with the transaction of business, including the issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a third Member. 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).