BVA9501958 
DOCKET NO.  93-07 543     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Reno, Nevada

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of a right arm fracture.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Bernard T. DoMinh, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from August 1943 to April 1945.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal from a rating decision by the Reno, Nevada, Regional
Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which
denied the veteran's claim for an increased (compensable)
evaluation for residuals of a right arm fracture.

REMAND

With the exception of several station hospital morning reports
dated in June 1944, showing that the veteran was treated for a
right arm fracture while at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina, her
service medical records are not associated with her claims
folder.  Efforts have been made to obtain her records on several
occasions, but the searches have not produced additional
information.  However, the representative has asked that another
search be made, indicating that there is no affirmative showing
that the veteran's service records were destroyed in a fire, and
given these facts, further historical information from the
service records would be beneficial in deciding this case, if
such information is available.  The morning reports formed the
basis for the RO's February 1982 decision which granted her
service connection for injury.  Though these records do not show
the specific site of her fracture, it is apparent from the record
that her right elbow was involved, the RO having admitted as much
in its decision, using 38 C.F.R. § 4.71(a), Diagnostic Code 5209,
which pertains to residuals of fracture of the elbow, to rate her
fracture.  However, during a May 1992 RO hearing, the veteran
testified that she sustained fractures to her right elbow in 3
places during service, and this needs to be explored.

A June 1992 VA examination showed tenderness of the right elbow.
X-rays of her cervical spine and both hands were taken and
revealed degenerative changes.  However, no X-rays were taken of
her right elbow, and the Board finds that its duty to assist
requires that a more thorough examination of this joint
(including an X-ray study) be performed in order to evaluate the
degree of disability produced by her fracture, including the
possibility of entitlement to a minimum compensable rating if
arthritic changes affecting this joint are discovered.

In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following development:

1.  The RO should have the military record
specialist (M21-1, Part III, paragraph
4.09) made efforts to obtain the veteran's
medical records (including all secondary
records and any existing personnel
records), not already on file.

2.  The veteran should be afforded a VA
orthopedic examination to determine the
severity of her residuals of her fracture
of the right arm.  The examining physician
should provide an opinion as to whether any
current orthopedic findings are associated
with the fracture which occurred during
active duty.  The physician should conduct
all indicated tests, including range of
motion testing, measured in degrees, and X-
ray studies, and should indicate whether
there is limitation of motion of the right
arm to the shoulder level, any limitation
of flexion or extension of the forearm,
described in degrees, any showing of
ankylosis, or malunion or nonunion of the
injuredjoint(s).  The claims folder must
be made available for review by the
examiner.

Thereafter, the RO should review the claim.  If the claim is
denied, the veteran and her representative should be issued a
supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to
respond.  Then the case should be returned to the Board.

          M. CHEEK
          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).