BVA9502750 
DOCKET NO.  93-02 503     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Honolulu,
Hawaii

THE ISSUES

1.  Whether the veteran has submitted new and material evidence
to reopen a claim of service connection for residuals of a head
injury, including traumatic brain disease, a lower jaw injury,
and facial scars.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for degenerative arthritis.

3.  Entitlement to an increased rating for anxiety disorder,
currently evaluated as
50 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Guam Office of Veterans Affairs

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Mark D. Hindin, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from May 1948 to June 1956.

Service connection for residuals of a head injury was denied in a
Board of Veterans' Appeals decision dated in April 1989.

Osteoarthritis of the cervical and lumbar spines was listed as
nonservice connected in a number of rating decisions beginning
with one dated in January 1976.  However, the veteran had not
made application for service connection for that disability until
recently.

This matter arises from a November 1990, rating decision in which
the regional office (RO) in essence determined that the veteran
had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen a claim of
service connection for residuals of a head injury, including a
lower jaw injury, traumatic brain disease, and facial scars;
denied entitlement to service connection for degenerative
arthritis, and confirmed a 50 percent evaluation for anxiety
disorder.

REMAND

The veteran was afforded VA psychiatric examinations in May 1991
and May 1992.  The reports of these examinations contain a number
of different diagnoses.  In May 1991, the veteran was diagnosed
with generalized anxiety disorder, while on VA examination in May
1992, this disability was not diagnosed, although he was
diagnosed as having organic mood disorder with anxious features.
In any event, it is unclear how much of the veteran's psychiatric
disability is attributable to the service-connected anxiety
disorder as opposed to the nonservice-connected disabilities.  It
is also unclear whether the RO considered the effect of the
Board's prior decisions on the veteran's claims for service
connection for facial scars and residuals of a jaw injury.

In view of the foregoing, this case is REMANDED for the
following:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and
request that he furnish information as to
any treatment he has received recently for
the conditions at issue in this appeal.
The RO should then take all necessary steps
to obtain those records and associate them
with the claims folder.

2.  The RO should schedule the veteran for
a compre-hensive VA psychiatric
examination.  This study must be conducted
in accordance with the VA Physician's Guide
for Disability Evaluation Examinations.
All indicated tests, including appropriate
psychological studies with applicable
subscales, must be conducted.  The claims
file must be made available to and reviewed
by the examiner prior to the requested
study.  The examiner must assign a Global
Assessment of Function-ing Score consistent
with the American Psychiatric Association's
DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL FOR
MENTAL DISORDERS (3d ed. rev., 1987), and
explain what the assigned score represents.
A complete rationale for any opinion
expressed must be provided.  If possible,
the examiner should identify those symptoms
due to the service-connected anxiety
disorder and indicate the level of social
and industrial impairment which is
attributable to the anxiety disorder.

3.  Following completion of the foregoing,
the RO
must review the claims folder and ensure
that all of the foregoing development
actions have been conducted and completed
in full.  If any development is incomplete,
including if the requested examination does
not include all test reports, special
studies or opinions requested, appropriate
corrective action is to be implemented.

4.  The RO should consider the effect of
the Board's April 1989 decision on his
claims for service connection for facial
scars and residuals of a jaw injury.

If after completion of the requested development the benefit
sought has not been granted, the veteran and his representative
should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case,
and be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.  Thereafter,
following compliance with all other procedures relative to the
processing of appeals, the case should be returned to the Board
for further appellate consideration of any issue for which a
valid substantive appeal has been submitted.  No action is
required of the veteran until he receives further notice.

          LAWRENCE M. SULLIVAN
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.