BVA9507758 
DOCKET NO.  92-20 189     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston,
Massachusetts

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for gastroenteritis.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for dysentery.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for colitis.

4.  Entitlement to service connection for diverticulitis.

5.  Entitlement to service connection for post-operative
residuals of a sigmoid colon resection.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

S. D. Regan, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from September 1942 to
December 1945.  This matter came before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (hereinafter "the Board") on appeal from a November 1991
rating decision of the Boston, Massachusetts Regional Office
(hereinafter "the RO") which denied service connection for
gastroenteritis, dysentery, colitis, diverticulitis and for post-
operative residuals of a sigmoid colon resection.  In November
1993, the Board remanded this appeal to the RO so that private
treatment records could be obtained.  The veteran has been
represented throughout this appeal by the Disabled American
Veterans.

REMAND

The veteran asserts on appeal that the RO erred in denying
service connection for gastroenteritis, dysentery, colitis,
diverticulitis and for post-operative residuals of a sigmoid
colon resection.  The veteran contends, essentially, that the
above disorders were incurred in or had origins during active
service.

In reviewing the record, this panel of the Board notes that the
case was previously REMANDED in November 1993 in an attempt to
secure treatment records from Albert A. Deschenes, M.D.  Dr.
Deschenes submitted a written statement in February 1994
outlining treatment be furnished the veteran.  However, there was
no indication as to whether he retained copies of treatment
records, or was basing his statement solely on memory.  The Board
is of the opinion that clarification of this is necessary, as
well as an examination by a gastroenterologist to determine the
nature and extent of any gastrointestinal/bowel problem the
veteran now has.

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

1.  Dr. Deschenes should again be contacted and
specifically asked as to whether he retains any
treatment records pertaining to the veteran.  If so,
an attempt should be made to secure copies thereof.

2.  The veteran should be examined by a
gastroenterologist to determine the nature and
severity of any current gastrointestinal/bowel
disabilities he manifests.  The examiner should be
furnished the veteran's records in order to review
his medical history.

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.

          E. W. SEERY
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

                  (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
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.  57 Fed. Reg. 4126 (1992) (to be
codified as 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b)).