BVA9500939 
DOCKET NO.  93-10 944     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Wichita, Kansas

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for paranoid
schizophrenia, currently rated as 50 percent disabling.

2.  Entitlement to a total rating based on individual
unemployability due to service connected disability.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

W. H. Wetmore, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from March 1979 to July 1980.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) received this case on
appeal from a July 1990 rating decision of the Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania RO.  The veteran has since moved to Kansas.

REMAND

The claims file includes a computer generated message, apparently
prepared in May 1993, that indicates the veteran does not wish to
submit to further examinations at that time and that the claim
was withdrawn.  The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (1993)
require that a withdrawal of a claim must be in writing from the
veteran, or under certain circumstances, his representative.
This note in the file can not be held to be a withdrawal of the
claim.  Accordingly, further development of this issue is
desirable.

In the event that the veteran does not wish to withdraw his
claim, the Board finds that further development of the medical
record is desirable.  Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the
following:

1.  The veteran should be contacted through
his representative and requested to
indicate in writing whether he wishes to
pursue his claim.

2.  If the veteran does not withdraw his
claim, copies of VA treatment records since
December 1990 should be associated with the
claims file.

3.  Thereafter, he should be afforded a
social and industrial survey.

4.  Thereafter, he should be afforded an
examination for VA by a psychiatrist to
determine the extent of his paranoid
schizophrenia.  The examiner should render
a multiaxial diagnosis, including a score
on the Global Assessment of Functioning
Scale, with an explanation of the numeric
score entered.

5.  The veteran should be scheduled for a
personal hearing, in accordance with his
written request therefor, received in
approximately 1991

6.  .  The RO should take adjudicatory
action based on the evidence obtained
pursuant to the development sought above.
If the benefit sought by the veteran is not
granted, a supplemental statement of the
case should be prepared.

After the veteran and his representative have been given an
opportunity to respond to any supplemental statement of the case,
the claims folder should be returned to this Board for further
appellate review, if in order.  No action is required by the
veteran until he receives further notice.  The purpose of the
remand is to procure clarifying data and to comply with governing
adjudicative procedures.  The Board intimates no opinion, either
legal or factual, as to the ultimate disposition of this appeal.

          BARBARA B. COPELAND
          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).