BVA9503149 
DOCKET NO.  94-01 074     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for status post
arthroscopy and open acromioplasty due to impingement syndrome of
the right (major) shoulder.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

B. Anderson, Counsel

REMAND

The appellant had active duty from December 1986 to February
1993.

This appeal arises from a June 1993 rating decision of the St.
Louis, Missouri, regional office (RO).  In that decision, service
connection was granted for status post arthroscopy and open
acromioplasty due to impingement syndrome of the right (major)
shoulder.  The appellant has effectively dropped from
consideration the disability evaluation assigned for a left thumb
disability, and the RO has granted the benefit sought with
respect to a right knee disability.  The appellant, however,
continues to disagree with the noncompensable rating assigned for
the right shoulder disability by the RO.

The appellant has correctly contended that the RO has not
adequately addressed loss of function due to right shoulder pain,
and he has appropriately cited a decision of the United States
Court of Veterans Appeals to the effect that functional loss
caused by either pain or limitation of motion should be
compensated at the same rate.  The appellant alleges that the
disability evaluation examination by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) was inadequate, and this may be the root of the
inability of the RO to adequately address loss of function due to
right shoulder pain, especially since the examination did not
contain a full description of the effects of the disability upon
the appellant's ordinary activity from the point of view of the
appellant working or seeking work.

To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in
developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full
compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following development:

1.  The appellant should be afforded a VA
orthopedic examination to determine the
current extent of the service-connected
status post arthroscopy and open
acromioplasty due to impingement syndrome
of the right (major) shoulder.  Detailed
clinical findings should be reported,
including any painful movements of the
right shoulder and the underlying
pathology.  The evaluation should contain a
full description of the effects of the
disability upon the appellant's ordinary
activity from the point of view of the
appellant working or seeking work.  In this
regard, the examiner should obtain and
record the appellant's personal and work
history.  The claims folder should be made
available to the examiner for review in
connection with the examination.

2.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should again review the record and
readjudicate the claim, to include
consideration of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (b)(1).

If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appellant
should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and
given the applicable opportunity to reply.  Thereafter, the case
should be returned to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), if
in order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate
outcome of this case.  The appellant need take no action until so
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 action has been taken in
accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 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) (1993).