BVA9506282 DOCKET NO. 93-05 113 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for cardiovascular disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for lung disability, to include residuals of asbestos exposure. 3. Entitlement to service connection for psychiatric disability. 4. Entitlement to service connection for low back disability. 5. Entitlement to service connection for right ear disability. 6. Entitlement to service connection for neck disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple Heart WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James L. March, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty for training from December 1956 to April 1960 and active duty from May 1958 to April 1960, and from October 1961 to April 1968. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. It appears from the record that the veteran may also be seeking service connection for numerous other disorders, including the following: headaches, right heel disability, hip disability, rib disability; stomach disability, and disability of the feet. The RO should request the veteran to specify whether he seeks service connection for these or any other disabilities, and it should respond appropriately to any clarification provided. REMAND The veteran testified that he was exposed to asbestosis on numerous occasions during service. There is also evidence of record which indicates that he had asbestos exposure subsequent to his military service. He recently has been diagnosed with asbestos-related lung disability. He has not been provided a VA examination for the purposes of determining if his lung disability is related to asbestos exposure during service. The veteran also alleges that his service medical records are incomplete. Specifically, he maintains that medical records from his service in Vietnam are not of record. The RO has not attempted to obtain additional service medical records for the veteran. A review of the record reveals that the veteran has been awarded disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). However, the medical evidence upon which SSA based its decision to grant disability benefits is not of record. In light of the foregoing circumstances, the Board concludes that further development of the evidence is warranted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. After obtaining any necessary information from the veteran, the RO should request the service department to conduct another search for additional service medical records. If no additional records are available, the reason should be specifically noted. 2. The RO should contact the SSA and request copies of the decision awarding the veteran disability benefits and the records upon which the veteran's award of disability benefits was based. 3. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who may possess additional records pertinent to any of his claims. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the veteran which have not been previously secured. 4. The RO should attempt to verify the veteran's alleged asbestos exposure using any means available. The RO should request that the veteran provide names and addresses of individuals who can corroborate the alleged asbestos exposure during service, and attempt to secure any additional service personnel records which are not currently of record. In addition, the RO should request that the veteran provide an employment history for the years subsequent to his discharge from service. An attempt should be made to verify any post-service asbestos exposure. 5. Then, the RO should arrange for a VA examination of the veteran by a board- certified pulmonary specialist, if available, to determine the current nature and severity of any lung disability present. It is imperative that the claims folder and a copy of this Remand be provided to the examining physician for review prior to the examination. All indicated studies should be conducted. The examiner should render an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the veteran's current lung disability is related to asbestos exposure in service. 6. Then, the RO should undertake any other indicated development and readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the claims are not granted to the veteran's satisfaction or if a timely notice of disagreement is received with respect to any other matter, the veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case concerning all issues in appellate status and be afforded a reasonable opportunity to reply. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion as to any ultimate outcome warranted. No action is required of the veteran until he is otherwise notified by the RO. SHANE A. DURKIN 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).