BVA9508019 
DOCKET NO.  93-06 273     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke,
Virginia

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for paranoid schizophrenia,
currently evaluated as 50 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

John R. Pagano, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from May 1968 to February
1970.

This matter arises from a rating decision rendered in August 1991
by the Roanoke, Virginia, Regional Office (RO), which confirmed
and continued the 50 percent disability evaluation previously
assigned for the veteran's service-connected paranoid
schizophrenia.

This case was first certified on appeal to the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board) in March 1993.  However, the Board
administratively remanded the case back to the RO so that an
issue unrelated to that on appeal might be resolved.  The latter
issue has since been adjudicated by the RO, and the case was
recertified to the Board for appellate consideration in November
1994.

REMAND

As a preliminary matter, the Board observes that the veteran has
submitted a claim which is "well grounded."  As such, the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a duty to assist him in
its development.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).  The
Board finds that this duty has not yet been met for the reasons
that follow.

The veteran underwent a VA psychiatric examination in April 1992.
The examining physician indicated that the claims folder had not
been available when he conducted his examination of the veteran.
Pursuant to VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, 38 C.F.R.
§ 4.1 (1994), it is "essential, both in the examination and in
the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in
relation to its history.  (Emphasis added.)  This is significant
because "[d]ifferent examiners, at different times, will not
describe the same disability in the same language.  Features of
the disability which must have persisted unchanged may be
overlooked or a change for the better or worse may not be
accurately appreciated or described."  38 C.F.R. § 4.2 (1994).
Given the long history of the veteran's service-connected
paranoid schizophrenia, the Board believes that any psychiatric
examination conducted for the express purpose of evaluating the
severity of that disability should be undertaken by an examiner
who has had an opportunity to review the clinical evidence of
record regarding the course that that disability has taken over
the years.  Because that was not done in this case, the April
1992 examination report is inadequate for evaluation purposes.
Id.  Further psychiatric examination of the veteran, therefore,
is necessary prior to appellate disposition.  See Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92 (1990).

In view of the foregoing, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following:

1.  The veteran should be requested to
undergo further VA psychiatric examination
with psychological testing to ascertain the
severity of his paranoid schizophrenia, and
its overall impact on his social and
industrial adaptability.  The claims folder
must be available to, and be reviewed by,
the examining physician prior thereto.  All
indicated tests and studies must be
accomplished.  Upon completion, the
examining physician should assign a
numerical code under the Global Assessment
of Functioning Scale (GAF Scale) as stated
in the American Psychiatric Association's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (3rd ed. revised, 1987)
(DSM-III-R).  It is imperative that the
examiner include a definition of the
numerical code assigned.  The examiner's
report should also include the complete
rationale for all opinions and conclusions
expressed.

2.  The RO should review the examination
report, and determine if it is in
compliance with this REMAND.  If not, it
should be returned for corrective action.

3.  Once the foregoing has been
accomplished, the RO should again review
the claim.  If the benefit sought on appeal
is not granted, both the veteran and his
representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case.  They
should also be given the appropriate time
period in which to respond.

Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedures, the case
should be returned to the Board for further consideration.  The
veteran need take no action until he is so informed.  The purpose
of this REMAND is both to obtain clarifying information and to
accord the veteran due process of law.  No inference should be
drawn regarding the final disposition of the claim.

          WARREN W. RICE, JR.
          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) (1994).