BVA9505639 
DOCKET NO.  92-07 129     )       DATE
          )
          )

Received from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland,
California

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for the residuals of
surgery to remove an acoustic neuroma, including an injury to the
tongue, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling.

2. Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of
surgery to remove an acoustic neuroma, to include aphasia,
headaches, and memory loss, currently evaluated as 10 percent
disabling.

3.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for residuals of
surgery to remove an acoustic neuroma, including a disorder of
the seventh cranial nerve, currently evaluated as 10 percent
disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

T. S. Kelly, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active military service from October 1981 to July
1986.  A review of the file demonstrates that this matter was
previously remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in
October 1993 for further development, to include obtaining
medical information from an individual who had been counseling
the veteran, and for additional Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) neurological examination, to include a period of
hospitalization for observation and evaluation.  The Board notes
that the regional office (RO) has attempted to obtain copies of
the veteran's medical records from Patricia Gray, D.H.S.,
F.A.A.C.S., the individual who had been counseling the veteran,
on at least two occasions.  These attempts have met with negative
results.

Although the previous Board remand could have been interpreted as
requiring that the medical records of the veteran be obtained
from Patricia Gray prior to performing the VA neurological
examination; obtaining these records did not serve as a condition
precedent to conducting the evaluation.

The Board is of the opinion that performing the VA neurological
examination, to include hospitalization, would be beneficial in
reaching a determination in this matter, regardless of whether
copies of the veteran's treatment records are obtained from
Patricia Gray.

To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in
developing the facts pertinent to the claim, the case is REMANDED
to the RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should request that the veteran
supply the names, dates, and places, of any
individuals or treatment facilities that have
treated him for any of the disabilities
presently on appeal since July 1991.  After
having received proper authorization from the
veteran, the RO should obtain copies of any
records not already included in the claims file
and associate them with the claims file.  A
reasonable response time for both the veteran
and the individuals and facilities provided by
the veteran should be allowed.  However, if no
response is received from the individuals or
facilities named by the veteran, the development
described in paragraph 3 should still be
performed.

2.  The RO should, after obtaining proper
authorization from the veteran, obtain and
associate with the claims file copies of all
treatment records of the veteran from Patricia J.
Gray, D.H.S., FAACS, 611 N. San Mateo Dr., Suite
5, San Mateo, CA., 94401.  The RO should allow a
reasonable time for a response; however, if no
response is received, the development described
in paragraph 3 should still be performed.

3.  The veteran should be hospitalized for a
period of observation and evaluation by a board-
certified neurologist who has not previously
examined the veteran.  The purpose is to evaluate
the nature and extent of the residuals of surgery
to remove an acoustic neuroma.  This should
include, but is not limited to the etiology and
frequency of his headaches.  All indicated tests
and studies should be performed, including, but
not limited to, neuropsychological testing.
Prior to the period of observation and
evaluation, the claims folder must be available
to the examiner so that the relevant medical
history may be reviewed.

When the requested development has been completed, the RO should
review the veteran's claims for increased ratings for the
residuals of surgery to remove an acoustic neuroma.  Should the
veteran continue to disagree with those decisions, he and his
representative must be furnished a supplemental statement of the
case and afforded an opportunity to respond.  Thereafter, if in
order, the claims folder should be returned to the Board for
further appellate consideration.

By this REMAND the Board intimates no opinion as to the final
disposition of any issue.  The purpose of the remand is to
procure clarifying medical information.  The veteran need take no
action unless he is notified.

          JOHN E. ORMOND
          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).