BVA9501660 
DOCKET NO.  93-06 598     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in No. Little
Rock, Arkansas

THE ISSUE

Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a
claim of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine
disorder.

REPRESENTATION

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

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The veteran and his brother

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

John D. Nachmann, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active naval service from March 1968 to February
1970.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a rating decision of April 1992 by the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) No. Little Rock, Arkansas, Regional
Office (RO).

REMAND

By decision in September 1990, the RO denied service connection
for a lumbar spine disorder.  Additional evidence supporting the
veteran's claim was subsequently submitted and an August 1992
hearing officer's decision determined that this evidence was new
and material and that the veteran's claim had therefore been
reopened.  Accordingly, the veteran has submitted a well-grounded
claim within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).  See Murphy v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990); Gilbert v. Derwinski,
1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990).  The VA therefore has a duty to assist
him in developing facts pertinent to his claim.  See Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 91-92 (1990).

The evidence of record indicates that the veteran has not been
afforded a VA examination, even though the duty to assist
includes the conduction of a thorough and contemporaneous
examination.  Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 16, 21 (1991).

The Board further notes that no abnormality of the veteran's
lumbar spine is noted in the report of an October 1967 service
medical examination, which was conducted prior to the veteran's
entrance into active service, and that the presumption of sound
condition, consequently, attaches in this case.  See 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.304(b) (1993); Crowe v. Brown, N. 93-550, slip op. at 11
(U.S. Vet. App. Dec. 20, 1994) (a copy of which is attached to
this remand decision).

Therefore, in order to give the veteran every consideration with
respect to the present appeal, it is the Board's opinion that
further development of the case is warranted.  See Ivey v.
Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 320, 322-23 (1992).  Accordingly, this case
is REMANDED for the following actions:

The veteran should be afforded a special
orthopedic examination in order to
ascertain the nature and extent of any
current lumbar spine disorder(s).  If
spondylolysis and/or spondylolisthesis
is/are found, the examiner should express
an opinion as to the degree of probability,
if any, that the disorder(s) existed prior
to the veteran's entrance into active
service and whether the disorder(s)
increased in severity during service.  If
any other lumbar spine disorder(s) are
found, the examiner should express an
opinion as to the likelihood of a
relationship, if any, between such lumbar
spine disorder(s) and spondylolysis and/or
spondylolisthesis.  The claims file or
copies of all relevant records therein must
be made available to the examiner prior to
and during the examination for a complete
study of the case.

After completion of the requested development, the case should be
reviewed by the RO.  If the determination remains adverse to the
veteran, the case should be returned to the Board after
compliance with the provisions for processing appeals, including
the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case and
provision of the applicable time period for response thereto.

The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional development,
and the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of
the case, either favorable or unfavorable, at this time.  No
action is required of the veteran until he is notified.

          CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM
          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).