BVA9508183 
DOCKET NO.  93-13 893     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson,
Mississippi

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for cephalgia, a skin
condition, and a draining palatal sinus.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Richard V. Chamberlain, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active duty for training from March to July 1973,
and he served on active duty from November 1990 to May 1991.

This appeal arises from a February 1993 rating decision by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Jackson, Mississippi, that denied service connection for
cephalgia, a skin condition, and a draining palatal sinus.  The
case was received at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in
June 1993.

REMAND

The record shows that the veteran's claims are well grounded,
meaning that they are well grounded.  VA has a duty to assist him
in developing facts pertinent to these claims.   38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159 (1994).  The
duty to assist includes obtaining all relevant records.  Murphy
v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990).

The evidence reveals that the veteran served in the Southwest
Asia theater during the Persian Gulf War.  While a previous
request in December 1992 was not successful, the veteran, in his
substantive appeal, indicates that additional medical records may
be obtainable from his reserve unit and he provided the address:
377th TAACOM, 5010 Leroy Johnson Drive, New Orleans, LA. 70146,
Attn: Major Gooch, to obtain such records.  The Board believes
that additional development for this information would be
consistent with the VA's duty to assist him.  In addition,
private treatment sources were listed on the veteran's November
1992 claim form, but have not been asked to provide pertinent
records.

Since the last RO rating decision concerning the veteran's
claims, an amendment to VA regulations has resulted in a new
regulation that affects these claims.  See Compensation for
Certain Undiagnosed Illnesses, 60 Fed. Reg. 6660-6666 (Feb. 3,
1995) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.317).  The RO should
consider this new regulation prior to appellate consideration of
the claims.

Finally, with respect to the claim of service connection for a
draining palatal sinus, there appears to have been an associated
claim for outpatient dental treatment filed in November 1992,
followed by a January 1993 dental rating decision by the RO
finding "no combat; no trauma; no POW."  That decision did not
consider the pathology in the area of tooth no. 15 which is the
subject of the claim.  The scant service records that are
available do show an abscess of an upper left tooth and a "bump"
in the top of the mouth in February 1991 (active duty).  An
October 1992 letter from the endodontics department at Keesler
Air Force Base indicates that a draining palatal sinus tract
problem associated with tooth no. 15 "has not resolved."  And a
December 1992 VA examination found a draining palatal sinus tract
associated with status post root canal of no. 15.  The Board
notes that the veteran's DD Form 214 does not indicate completion
of dental treatment, and that the veteran's claim for treatment
was timely filed.  See 38 C.F.R. § 17.123(b)(1)(i) (1994).  See
also Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 302 (1993) (claim for dental
treatment was timely where record did not show veteran had been
given proper notice of VA time limits by service secretary).

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

1.  The RO should make an effort to obtain
additional medical records from the
veteran's reserve unit at the above-noted
address.

2.  The RO should request pertinent records
from Dr. Cobb, 1129 Ocean Springs Rd.,
Ocean Springs MS 39564; Dr. Manuel, Doctor
Plaza Bldg., Pascagoula MS 39567; and Dr.
Winters, Highway 90, Ocean Springs
MS 39564.

3.  After the above development, the RO
should review the claims, and prepare a
dental rating decision with respect to
tooth no. 15.  If the claims are denied, a
supplemental statement of the case should
be provided to the veteran covering all
evidence received since the issuance of the
statement of the case, a summary of the new
regulation with citation, and a discussion
on how this regulation affects the claims.

After the veteran is given an opportunity to respond to the
supplemental statement of the case, the file should be returned
to the Board.

          J. E. DAY
          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).