Citation NR: 9729764	
Decision Date: 08/28/97		Archive Date: 09/04/97
DOCKET NO.  96-40 225	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-
Salem, North Carolina


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for multiple sclerosis.


REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
Inc.


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Veteran


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J.R. Moore, Associate Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from January 1964 to 
June 1967.

This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on 
appeal from an October 1995 rating decision by the Winston-
Salem, North Carolina Regional Office (RO) of the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (VA) in which the RO denied the veteran's 
claim of entitlement to service connection for multiple 
sclerosis.  The veteran's notice of disagreement was received 
in May 1996.  A statement of the case was mailed to the 
veteran in May 1996.  The veteran's substantive appeal was 
received in July 1996.  The veteran testified at a hearing 
before a local hearing officer in October 1996.

The Board notes the veteran was scheduled to testify at a 
hearing before a member of the Board in August 1997.  The 
veteran was notified of this hearing in a letter sent to his 
address of record in April 1997.  The veteran failed to 
report for his scheduled hearing, however.

The veteran is represented by Paralyzed Veterans of America, 
Inc. in this appeal.


REMAND

New evidence was received at the Board in August 1997 which 
has not yet been considered by the RO.  This evidence 
consists of a letter from Craig M. Bash, M.D., 
Neuroradiologist.  Consideration of this evidence has not 
been waived by the veteran or the veteran's representative.  
The Board therefore finds that the RO should review the new 
evidence received before the Board can enter a decision 
regarding the veteran's claim.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) 
(1996).


The Board also notes that G. Frank Crowell, M.D., in a July 
1995 letter indicated that the veteran had received treatment 
at Eastern State Hospital.  The Board believes that the 
veteran’s records should be requested from Eastern State 
Hospital.  The Board also is aware that Dr. Crowell’s records 
of the veteran have been requested and received, however, the 
Board finds that Dr. Crowell should be requested to submit 
copies of all the veteran’s records.

The veteran in a letter received in October 1995 indicated 
that he was going to start clinical trials for Betaseron 
medication at Bowman Gray.  The veteran’s records should be 
requested from Bowman Gray.

The veteran at his October 1996 hearing indicated that he had 
been denied Social Security benefits.  The RO should request 
the veteran’s records from the Social Security 
Administration.

For the reasons stated above, this case is hereby REMANDED to 
the RO for the following actions:

1.	The RO should request copies of 
all the veteran’s treatment records 
from Dr. Crowell, Bowman Gray, 
Eastern State Hospital, and the 
Social Security Administration.  See 
above. 

2.	The veteran should be permitted to 
submit any additional evidence in the 
veteran's possession pertinent to the 
issue on appeal.  The RO should also 
request the veteran furnish the names 
and addresses of all medical care 
providers who have furnished 
treatment for multiple sclerosis.  
Copies of medical records from all 
sources the veteran identifies, 
including VA records not already in 
the claims folder, should be 
requested.  Whether or not the 
veteran responds, all VA treatment 
records of the veteran should be 
obtained.  All records obtained which 
are not already in the claims folder 
should be associated with the claims 
folder.

3.	When the above actions have been 
completed, the RO should schedule the 
veteran for an examination by a 
neurologist.  The neurologist must be 
furnished the claims folder for 
review.  The neurologist must state 
whether the veteran has multiple 
sclerosis.  If so, the neurologist 
should render an opinion as to the 
date of onset.

4.	Subsequently the issue should be 
reevaluated by the RO and, in the 
event the determination remains 
adverse to the veteran, the claims 
folder and the assembled data should 
be returned to the Board for 
completion of appellate review after 
issuance of a supplemental statement 
of the case.  No action is required 
by the veteran unless he receives 
further notice.

By this action, the Board intimates no opinion, legal or 
factual, as to the ultimate decision warranted.




		
	E. M. KRENZER
	Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

38 U.S.C.A. § 7102 (West Supp. 1997) permits a proceeding 
instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual 
member of the Board for a determination.  This proceeding has 
been assigned to an individual member of the Board.

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) 
(1996).
- 2 -