BVA9500155 
DOCKET NO.  93-05 901     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Albuquerque,
New Mexico

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to
the low back.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Carolyn Wiggins, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from April 1978 until June
1978.

This appeal arises from an April 1992 rating decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Albuquerque, New Mexico which denied service connection for
residuals of a low back injury.

In a letter dated in May 1992 the appellant requested a personal
hearing.  The RO informed the appellant that his hearing was
scheduled for December 1992 in a letter dated in October 1992.  A
Confirmed Rating Decision sheet dated in December 1992 notes that
the appellant failed to appear for the hearing.  In his Appeal to
the Board of Veterans Appeals the veteran checked the box which
said "NO" after the question "Do you wish to appear at a
hearing?"  The Board assumes that this means the appellant no
longer wants a hearing.

REMAND

The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that
the VA has the duty to undertake a "reasonably exhaustive search"
for relevant treatment records.  The RO has requested that the
National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) provide copies of the
appellant's service medical records.  In this instance where the
NPRC has replied that they were unable to locate and supply the
appellant's service medical records, an attempt should be made to
locate the clinical records of the facility where the appellant
states he sought treatment.  The RO should refer to M21-1, Part
III, Chapter 4, Requests for Service Records, Paragraphs 4.02b
(2) and 4.02c.  It outlines the process for storing and
organizing clinical records of the treatment facilities.

In his claim for benefits the appellant listed several physicians
and facilities where he had received treatment for his claimed
back disorder.  No attempt has been made to obtain these records.

The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of all
facts pertinent to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (a) (West
1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993).  The United States Court of
Veterans Appeals has held that the duty to assist the veteran in
obtaining available facts and evidence to support his claim
includes obtaining pertinent evidence that applies to all
relevant facts.  Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990).
Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
actions:

1.  The RO should make another attempt to
secure the veteran's service medical
records through official channels.  The RO
should contact the Hospital at Fort Leonard
Wood and request any records of treatment
of the appellant from April through June of
1978.  The RO should also contact the NPRC
and request that they search the records of
the treating facilities for clinical
records of Fort Leonard Wood Hospital,
during April through June of 1978, for
treatment of the appellant.

2.  The RO should obtain the names and
addresses of all medical care providers who
treated the veteran for residuals of a low
back injury since 1978.  The RO should
specifically attempt to secure records of
treatment from: the USMCFP St. Louis,
Missouri, Federal Hospital, Springfield,
Missouri, 65808, (417) 862-7041 for the
period from 1982-1983; Dr. Robert
Rutschman, Los Lunas, New Mexico; CNMCF,
P.O. Drawer 1328, Los Lunas, New Mexico,
from 1984 until the present; Dr. Gerald
Nathan Gold, 522 Lomas Boulevard
N.E.,Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102, in the
mid-1980's; St. Joseph's Hospital,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, from 1985 to 1989.
After securing the necessary releases, the
RO should obtain these records.

Following completion of the above actions, the case should be
reviewed by the RO.  If the benefits sought remain denied, the
veteran and his representative should be provided with an
appropriate supplemental statement of the case and given the
opportunity to respond.  The case should then be returned to the
Board for further appellate review.

          Samuel W. Warner
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures
Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___
(1994), 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) (1993).