BVA9502841 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 788     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-Salem,
North Carolina

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for hearing loss, right
ear.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. A. McDonald, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from January 1943 to November
1943.  This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter Board) from the Department of Veterans Affairs
Regional Office in Winston-Salem, North Carolina (hereinafter
RO).

REMAND

The Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA) has a duty to
assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his
claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a)
(1993).  By a rating action in August 1992, the RO denied the
veteran's claims of entitlement to compensable ratings for
service-connected right otitis media, and right ear hearing loss,
as well as entitlement to service connection for benign
positional vertigo, left leg pain and feet pain, secondary to
diabetic neuropathy.  The RO deferred action on claims of
entitlement for service connnection for the veteran's right leg
and ventricular tachycardia, under the provisions of
38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (1993).

The veteran filed a notice of disagreement in September 1992,
which voiced his disagreement with the action taken on his claims
for "hearing loss, right ear, left leg, feet condition."  He
attached a statement that discussed his "inner ear problem," and
stated that soon after his ear infection in service, he developed
dizzy spells.  He further claimed he injured his legs and feet
while in service due the the weight of his packs during
maneuvers.  He alleged he has a scar on his right ear due to an
injury he incurred in service.  The veteran maintained that due
to surgery he received under the auspices of the VA, he sustained
a nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, as well as injury to his
leg due to the angioplasty.  The veteran stated that the
medication he is required to take for his heart is causing
serious side effects, affecting his eyes, lungs, and stomach.
The veteran also stated that his feet hurt.

The statement of the case dated February 1993, in response to the
notice of disagreement, addressed only the issues of entitlement
to a compensable evaluation for service-connected right otitis
media and hearing loss of the right ear, and entitlement to
service connection for benign positional vertigo and for left
left and feet pain, secondary to diabetic neuropathy.  The
veteran filed a substantive appeal in March 1993 on the issues of
entitlement to a compensable rating for hearing loss in the right
ear and for service connection for benefits under
38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (1993) for his heart and leg.  As the issues
of service connection for the veteran's heart and leg were
deferred due a VA stay on such issues, the only issue certified
for appeal was the veteran's claim of entitlement to a
compensable rating for hearing loss in the right ear.

However, in May 1993, after this issue was certified on appeal,
the Board received from the veteran a copy of the statement which
was attached to the veteran's notice of disagreement raising the
issues discussed above.  It appears clear from such a submission,
that the veteran wishes to pursue the issues of a compensable
rating for otitis media and service connection for vertigo, and
leg and feet pain on appeal.  The RO has not addressed the of
issue service connection for a scar on the veteran's right ear.
The Board also notes from a review of the evidence that a number
of physicians in 1988, stated that the veteran was unable to work
due to his disabilities.  This inferred issue of a total rating,
either on a nonservice-connected or service-connected basis,
should be addressed by the RO.

Thereafter, in September 1993, the Board received a VA
audiological examination dated August 1993.  Submission of
additional evidence following certification of an appeal to the
Board must be referred to the RO for review and preparation of a
supplemental statement of the case, unless the veteran waives
this procedural right.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (1993).  This
procedural right was not waived with regard to the aforementioned
evidence.

The Board further notes that the veteran has claims pending
regarding benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (1993).  The stay on
the adjudication of these issues have been lifted, and these
issues should be adjudicated by the RO.  Brown v. Gardner,
115 S. Ct. 552 (1994).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Board is of the opinion
that additional assistance is required.  Accordingly, this case
is remanded to the RO for the following actions:

1.  All pertinent medical records from
private and VA sources subsequent to
August 1993 should be obtained and
associated with the claims file.

2.  The RO should develop the issue of a
scar on the veteran's right ear which was
raised in the veteran's statement attached
to his notice of disagreement, as well as
the inferred issue of a total rating,
either on a nonservice-connected or
service-connected basis.  The veteran's
claims which are pending regarding
benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (1993)
should be adjudicated by the RO.

3.  The RO should consider the veteran's
claim of entitlement to a compensable
evaluation for hearing loss of the right
ear, in light of the VA audiological
examination conducted in August 1993.

If there is no basis for allowance of the claims, to include a
compensable rating for otitis media and service connection for
vertigo, and leg and foot pain, a supplemental statement of the
case should be issued for all issues properly on

appeal and should contain a summary of all pertinent evidence of
record, along with the legal criteria governing the claims.
After allowing sufficient opportunity for the veteran to respond,
the case, including any additional evidence, should then be
returned to the Board for further appellate review.  No action is
required of the veteran until he receives further notice.

          JEFF MARTIN
          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).