BVA9501547 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 172     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South
Carolina

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for urethritis.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Tresa Schlecht, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The appellant had active service from October 1970 to June 1972.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a September 1991 rating decision of the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South
Carolina, which denied an increased (compensable) rating for
urethritis.  The appellant's substantive appeal indicates that he
is unable to work and may be a claim for a total disability
rating.  This statement is referred to the RO for any action it
deems appropriate.

REMAND

The appellant and his representative contend on appeal that the
appellant is entitled to an increased (compensable) rating for
urethritis based on the appellant's complaints of testicular pain
(orchialgia) and penile pain with radiation of pain to the
abdomen and low back, tenesmus, frequency of urination, burning
on urination, and discharge from the urethra.  The appellant
contends that these symptomatic manifestations are so severe as
to require an increased rating.  Although the appellant alleges
that each of these symptomatic manifestations results from his
urethritis, the medical records before the Board do not confirm
that the appellant currently suffers from urethritis, nor do the
medical records before the Board confirm that the appellant's
testicular pain, abdominal pain, lower back pain, or other
complaints are related to urethritis.

The evidence of record includes a VA urologic examination
conducted in October 1992 which includes urinalysis results and
intravenous pyelogram (IVP) results.  That October 1992
examination does not include a diagnosis, however, and neither
confirms that the appellant has urethritis nor offers an
alternate diagnosis.  The examiner noted that the appellant's
file was not available and the examiner had no service medical
records or records of treatment since service relating to the
appellant's urologic condition.  The examiner notes that the
appellant's IVP was normal.  The examiner notes that the
appellant's urinalysis was normal, with no evidence of pyuria.
Since urethritis is an inflammation of the urethra, pyuria, pus
in the urine, is required under 38 C.F.R. § 4.115a, Diagnostic
Code 7512, for a compensable rating.  The Board notes that
although the appellant states he has a discharge from his
urethra, no examination of such a discharge has been made, and
all recent urine tests have been negative for pyuria.  The
examiner who conducted the October 1992 examination noted that
the appellant had complaints of testicular pain but did not
provide an opinion as to the etiology of such pain.  Previous
examinations of record stated that the appellant had orchialgia
of undetermined etiology.  In order to ensure that VA has met its
duty to assist the appellant in developing the facts pertinent to
his claim, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
development:

1.  The RO should contact the appellant to
determine whether there are recent VA or
private treatment records of treatment for
urethritis.  If such records are available,
the RO should secure the necessary releases
and associate such records with the claims
folder.

2.  The RO should obtain employment medical
records,  employment records recording
absence from work and the reasons for
absence, and employment records noting the
reasons for resignation or termination of
employment.

3.  The veteran should be afforded a VA
urologic examination to determine whether
the appellant currently has urethritis, and
if so, to determine the severity of the
condition.  All indicated diagnostic
testing should be performed.  The examiner
should discuss the relationship, if any,
between the appellant's urethritis and his
subjective symptoms, including orchialgia,
pain in the abdomen and lower back,
increased pain on activity, urinary
frequency, and tenesmus.  The examiner
should provide a medical opinion as to
whether these symptoms are a result of the
appellant's service-connected urethritis.
The examiner should also consider the
appellant's complaints of nocturia, burning
on urination, and urethral discharge.  The
claims folder must be made available to the
examiner before each examination.

If the RO denies the claim for a compensable rating for
urethritis after the additional medical evidence has been
reviewed, the appellant should be provided with a supplemental
statement of the case which addresses the claim for a compensable
rating.  The appellant and his representative should have an
opportunity to respond to the supplemental statement of the case.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome
of this case.  The appellant need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN
          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).