BVA9505535 
DOCKET NO.  93-13 369     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to increased (compensable) rating for bilateral
hearing loss.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Constance C. Hickey, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from December 1969 to December
1973.

This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from
the November 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia
which denied service connection for right ear hearing loss and
established service connection and a noncompensable rating for
left ear hearing loss.

A subsequent May 1993 rating decision effectuated the April 1993
decision of the hearing officer to grant service connection for
right ear hearing loss.  A noncompensable rating was assigned.

During his February 1993 personal hearing the veteran raised the
issues of entitlement to service connection for bilateral
tinnitus, for headaches secondary to hearing loss, and for
bilateral ear infections.  Those issues have not been adjudicated
by the RO and have not been developed for appellate review by the
Board.  Accordingly, these issues are referred to the RO for
consideration and action as appropriate.

REMAND

On review of the record, the Board notes that the veteran's
hearing status has not been examined by VA since October 1991.
The veteran has testified, in essence, that his hearing has
worsened, and it is asserted that he should be afforded a current
VA audiometric examination.  In view of the passage of time since
the October 1991 examination, the Board finds that a current
examination should be conducted in order to ensure that the
record contains the report of a contemporaneous examination to
evaluate the status of the veteran's service-connected hearing
loss.  See Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377 (1994).

In keeping with VA's statutory duty to assist the veteran in
developing the facts pertinent to his claim and to ensure full
compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following actions:

1.  The RO should ask the veteran to
identify any medical care providers, VA or
private, who have treated or evaluated the
veteran for his hearing loss during recent
years.  The RO should take appropriate
action to obtain records of any such
treatment or evaluation.

2.  Thereafter, the veteran should be
afforded a VA audiological evaluation to
examine his current hearing status.  All
appropriate testing should be accomplished.
The claims folder should be made available
to the examiner for review before the
examination.

3.  After the development requested above
has been completed, the RO should again
review the record.  If the determination
remains adverse to him, the veteran and his
representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case, which
should include a citation of the diagnostic
criteria which govern evaluation of the
service-connected bilateral hearing loss.
They should be given the opportunity to
respond.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome
of this case.  The veteran need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          D. C. SPICKLER
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
          (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
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).