BVA9507728 
DOCKET NO.  93-16 819     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for multiple sclerosis.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C. M. Flatley, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active service from January 1977 to January 1981.
This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal from a July 1991 rating decision of the St. Petersburg,
Florida, regional office (RO).

Review of the record indicates that the veteran has submitted a
well-grounded claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).  The VA
therefore has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Murphy v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81-82 (1990).  In this regard, the
veteran's representative has emphasized that although the veteran
reported that he received pertinent treatment at MacDill Air
Force Base in Tampa, Florida, in approximately 1979 and 1980,
records associated with such treatment are not on file.

Further, the veteran reported that during his 10-year period of
employment as a police officer, he underwent yearly physical
examinations.  Although post-service clinical data are of record,
including from CIGNA Healthplan of Florida, the record indicates
that additional records may be outstanding.  Lastly, the
veteran's representative has requested that the veteran be
provided with a thorough VA examination.  Upon review of the
record, the Board is of the opinion that additional clinical data
may prove helpful in evaluation the veteran's claim.  In order to
fully assist the veteran in the development of his case,
therefore, and extend to the veteran every equitable
consideration, additional development is warranted.  As such,
this case is REMANDED for the following:

1.  The RO should obtain all available
service medical records not previously
associated with the veteran's claims
folder, particularly those associated with
the veteran's reported treatment at MacDill
Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida in
approximately 1979 and 1980.

2.  After any necessary information and
authorization are obtained from the veteran
records of any post-service clinical data,
VA or private, inpatient or outpatient,
routine or associated with his multiple
sclerosis, particularly data related to
regular examinations in association with
the veteran's former employment, should be
obtained by the RO and incorporated into
the claims folder.

3.  The veteran should undergo a VA
examination by a specialist in neurology to
determine the nature and etiology of the
veteran's multiple sclerosis.  The
examination should be conducted in
accordance with the  provisions of the VA's
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations.  All indicated studies should
be conducted.  The examination report
should include a full description of the
veteran's symptoms, clinical findings, and
associated functional impairment; all
findings should be recorded in detail.  In
a comprehensive report, and after review of
the veteran's claims folder, including his
history, complaints, and with attention to
service medical records, the examiner
should provide an opinion, with supporting
rationale, as to the degree of probability,
if any, that the initial manifestation of
the veteran's multiple sclerosis occurred
in service or within seven years from his
separation.  The veteran's claims folder
must be provided to the examiner for review
prior to the examination.

4.  The RO should then review the veteran's
claim.  All pertinent law, regulations, and
United States Court of Veterans Appeals
(Court) decisions should be considered.  If
the veteran's claim remains in a denied
status, he and his representative should be
provided with a supplemental statement of
the case, which includes any additional
pertinent law and regulations and a full
discussion of action taken on the veteran's
claim, consistent with the Court's
instruction in Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 49 (1990).  The applicable
response time should be allowed.

The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, after
compliance with customary appellate procedures.  No action is
required of the veteran until he is so informed.  The Board
intimates no opinion as to the ultimate decision warranted in
this case, pending completion of the requested development.

          EUGENE A. O'NEILL
          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 action has been taken in
accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 133-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).