BVA9504708 
DOCKET NO.  93-14 209     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for anisocoria and
opacities of the right cornea.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Sandra L. Smith, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from October 1944 to October 1946
and from November 1948 to October 1949.  This appeal is before
the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) from a June 1992
rating decision of the Regional Office (RO) which denied a
increased evaluation for anisocoria and opacities of the right
cornea.  The case is now ready for appellate review.

REMAND

Historically, the veteran was afforded a VA medical examination
in 1953.  The medical examiner noted that the veteran's right
cornea had 2 round superficial opacities.  In addition, the left
pupil was larger than the right.  In a subsequent rating
decision, dated in June 1953, the veteran was granted service
connection and assigned a noncompensable evaluation for
anisocoria and opacities of the right cornea with normal vision.
This rating has continued to the present time.

The veteran contends that the severity of his service-connected
eye disorder warrants a compensable disability evaluation.  The
VA has a duty to assist the veteran in developing pertinent
information relating to his claim pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a) (West 1991).  The Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court)
has held that the duty to assist also includes providing a
thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, which takes
into account prior medical evaluations and treatment.  Green v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121 (1991).  In this case, it has been many
years since the veteran was afforded a VA special eye examination
for the purpose of evaluating his service-connected eye
disability.

In addition, the Board notes that although the RO has not
addressed the issue of entitlement to service connection for
glaucoma, the visual field loss associated with glaucoma has
apparently been considered in determining the degree of
impairment associated with the veteran's service-connected eye
disorder.  Additional clarification in this regard is indicated.

The Court has also held that when the Board concludes the medical
evidence of record is insufficient it may supplement the record
by ordering a medical examination.  Colvin v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 171 (1991).

In light of the aforementioned, and consistent with the VA's duty
to assist the veteran in the development of his case, the Board
concludes that additional development is warranted.  Accordingly,
this case is REMANDED for the following:

1.  A special VA ophthalmologic examination
should be scheduled to determine the
severity of the veteran's service-connected
anisocoria and opacities of the right
cornea, in accordance with the VA's
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations.  The veteran's complaints
should be noted, all pertinent studies
should be done, and all findings should be
reported in detail.  In particular, the
examination should include findings with
regard to the veteran's visual acuity, as
determined by ophthalmolgical testing.  A
comprehensive report, with attention to the
history of the disability, should be
furnished and associated with the veteran's
claims folder.  The examiner should provide
an opinion as to the etiological or causal
relationship, if any, between any current
eye disability, including glaucoma, and the
veteran's service-connected disability.
The examiner should also, to the extent
possible, differentiate the symptoms and
findings of each eye disorder.  The claims
folder should be made available to the
examiner for review prior to the
examination.

2.  The RO should then review the veteran's
claim.  If the claim remains denied, the
veteran and his representative should be
provided with a supplemental statement of
the case which includes all issues and any
additional law and regulations which may
pertain to the veteran's claim.  A full
discussion of action taken on the veteran's
claim should be included, consistent with
the Court's instruction in Gilbert v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990).
Reasonable response time should be allowed.

The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, after
compliance with all customary appellate procedures.  No action is
required of the veteran until he is so informed.  The Board
intimates no opinion as to the ultimate decision warranted in
this case, pending completion of the requested development.

          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) (1994).