BVA9507715 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 262     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing
loss.

2.  Entitlement to a compensable rating for tinnitus.

3.  Entitlement to a compensable evaluation under the provisions
of 38 C.F.R. § 3.324 (1994).

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. A. McDonald, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active military duty from January 1969 to
December 1970.  This case comes before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (hereinafter Board) on appeal from a January 1992 rating
action of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in
St. Petersburg, Florida (hereinafter RO).

In statements on appeal the veteran raised the issue of
entitlement to service connection for an ear infection.  This
issue has not been adjudicated by the RO and has not been
developed for appellate consideration.  As such, it is referred
to the RO for appropriate action.

REMAND

The veteran contends that his bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus
have increased in severity.  He further maintains that a
compensable evaluation for his service-connected disorders is
warranted under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.324 (1994).

In his substantive appeal, received in June 1992, the veteran
reported that he had undergone an audiological evaluation earlier
that month, and requested that the report of such evaluation be
considered in evaluating his service-connected hearing loss
disability.  The report of such evaluation has not been
requested, and is not of record.

To ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has met
its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent
to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due process
requirements, the case is REMANDED to the regional office (RO)
for the following development:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and
request the name and location of all health
care providers, including VA medical
facilities, that have treated or evaluated
the

disabilities at issue since December 1991,
to include the medical provider which
rendered an audiological evaluation of his
hearing loss on June 15, 1992.  Upon
receipt of this information, the RO should
obtain a copy of all such treatment and/or
evaluation reports, to include from the
Gainesville, Florida VA medical center, not
already of record, and associate them with
the claims folder.

2.  The veteran should be afforded a VA
audiological examination to determine the
nature and severity of his bilateral
hearing loss disability, and tinnitus, to
include the frequency of the tinnitus.  The
claims folder should be made available to
the examiner for review before the
examination.

3.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should again review the record.  If
any benefit sought on appeal, for which a
notice of disagreement has been filed,
remains denied, the appellant and
representative, if any, should be furnished
a supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond thereto.

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 appellant need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          U. R. POWELL
          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).