BVA9500576 
DOCKET NO.  93-04 365     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg,
Florida

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J.P.  Reep,  Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from June 1964 to
August 1970.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from a January 1992 rating decision of the St.
Petersburg, Florida Regional Office (RO) of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied service connection for a
cervical spine disorder.  In October 1992, the veteran testified
before a hearing officer.

REMAND

The veteran submitted a copy of a page from her November 1992
supplemental statement of the case, wherein it is indicated that
there was "no diagnosis of a single underlying disability to
which all your orthopedic conditions could be tied..."  On the
copy is a handwritten notation which challenges that conclusion.
It appears that the notation may have been signed by a VA
physician.  However, it also plausible that the notation was made
by the veteran, and that she was merely referring to the
physician.  Because the basis of the veteran's claim is that her
cervical spine disorder is secondary to service-connected
disorders, and the notation may support her claim, the source of
the notation must be clarified.

In addition, the claims folder contains additional argument of
the veteran's representative, dated in November 1994.  Attached
to said written argument are copies of various VA outpatient
records, including a July 24, 1992 entry which indicates that the
veteran may have degenerative joint disease involving the
cervical spine, and that arthropathy should be ruled out.  This
evidence has not been reviewed by the RO and, according to the
veteran's representative, the veteran has specifically refused to
waive initial RO review.

In light of the foregoing, the veteran's representative has
requested remand.

Also, at the veteran's October 1992 hearing, she indicated that
she was first diagnosed as having cervical disc disease eight or
nine years earlier.  Clearly, any documentation regarding or
supporting that diagnosis would be relevant.  Unfortunately, the
name of the physician who provided the diagnosis was not
established at the hearing, nor is it apparent from the record.

Consequently, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
actions:

1.  The RO should obtain all up-to-date VA
treatment records regarding treatment for a
cervical disorder.  Any records so obtained
should be associated with the claims
folder.

2.  The veteran should be contacted and
asked to provide the name and address of
the physician who diagnosed cervical disc
disease eight or nine years prior to her
October 1992 hearing.  The RO should then
attempt to obtain any pertinent treatment
records from that physician.  Any records
so obtained should be associated with the
claims folder.

3.  The RO should consider the
aforementioned copies of VA outpatient
records, especially the July 24, 1992
entry.

4.  The RO should ascertain whether the
aforementioned handwritten notation, on the
copy of the supplemental statement of the
case, is a statement from a physician, or
commentary generated by the veteran.

5.  When the above development is
completed, the claims folder should be
referred to a VA orthopedist for review of
the entire record and the expression of an
opinion as to the correct diagnosis of the
spinal disorder and whether the veteran's
cervical spine disorder is etiologically
attributable to her service-connected joint
disorders, including degenerative changes
of the lumbar spine.  Specifically the
examiner should address the question of
whether the veteran has spondyloarthropathy
or any other single entity, encompassing
the entire spine.  It would be helpful if
the examiner were to set forth all
conclusions in detail, providing adequate
rationale for the opinion(s) rendered.

6.  The RO should then consider whether the
veteran is entitled to service connection
for a cervical spine disorder.  If that
benefit remains denied, the veteran and her
representative should be furnished with a
supplemental statement of the case which
contains an explanation of the RO's latest
deliberations.  The veteran and her
representative should be afforded the
opportunity to respond to the supplemental
statement of the case.  Then the case
should be returned to the Board for further
appellate consideration, if otherwise in
order.

The veteran need take no action until she is further notified by
the RO.  The purpose of this Remand is to procure additional
evidence and to ensure due process.

          N. R.  ROBIN
          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).