BVA9503106 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 015     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania

THE ISSUES

1. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of a shell fragment wound to right flank.

2.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of a shell fragment wound to right posterior thorax.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Constance C. Hickey, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from November 1967 to August 1969
and essentially continuous service from September 1973 to
December 1975.

This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from
the November 1989 rating decision of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which
denied a compensable rating for residuals of shell fragment
wounds to the right flank and lower leg, and residuals of shell
fragment wounds to the right posterior thorax.

A May 1992 rating decision effectuated the decision of a hearing
officer granting a separate 10 percent evaluation for residuals
of shell fragment wounds to the lower right leg.  The record does
not reflect that the veteran has expressed any disagreement with
that aspect of the Hearing Officer's decision.  Therefore the
issues before the Board are as described above.

REMAND

The veteran has asserted that residuals of his shell fragment
wounds to the right thorax and right flank are manifested by pain
and burning on exertion.  On initial review of the record the
Board notes that the report of the December 1992 VA compensation
examination indicates a diagnosis of gunshot wound with secondary
muscle dysfunction.  However, complete descriptions of affected
muscle groups, evaluations of muscle strength and function, or
descriptions of the effect of pain on motion, do not appear in
the report.  Additionally, there are no clinical records of
physical therapy which the veteran reportedly underwent for his
back and legs at a VA Medical Center (VAMC) in 1989, while he was
primarily under treatment for a herniated disc in the neck.

In view of VA's duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to his claim, the Board finds that a thorough
examination by an appropriate specialist would be helpful to
assess the current status of the residuals of the veteran's shell
fragment wounds.  Therefore, the case is REMANDED for the
following actions:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and
request that he provide the names and
addresses of all medical care providers,
VA and private, who have examined
or treated him for the residuals of his
shell fragment wounds since separation from
service, in addition to the approximate
dates of such examination or treatment.
After the appropriate releases have been
obtained, the RO should contact the medical
care providers identified by the veteran
and request that they provide copies of any
treatment records pertaining to the
veteran.  Copies of all records of
identified VA treatment should be obtained.
All records received should be associated
with the veteran's claims folder.

2.  The RO should then arrange for
examination of the veteran by an
orthopedic specialist to assess the
residuals of the veteran's shell fragment
wounds in accordance with VA's Physician's
Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations and the pertinent
regulations.  All appropriate special
tests and X-rays should be performed.  The
examiner should thoroughly review the
veteran's claims folder prior to
examination.  It is specifically requested
that the examiner identify all muscles
affected and describe any effects upon
motion in strength, excursion, and
diminished capacity for prolonged use.
The examiner should record and evaluate
complaints of weakness, fatigability or
pain on use, and note any evidence of pain
such as flinching or muscle spasm, as well
as any additional pertinent findings which
describe the status of the residuals of
the veteran's shell fragment wounds to the
right posterior thorax and right flank.
Complaints of pain and pain on motion
should be objectively verified.  It is
also requested that, if the veteran has
symptomatology in the right flank or right
posterior thorax attributed to other
causes, that fact be set forth.
Supporting rationale should be provided
for all opinions expressed.

3.  Following completion of all requested
development the RO should again review the
veteran's claims for compensable
evaluations for the residuals of his shell
fragment wounds, on the basis of the
entire record.  The RO should consider all
diagnostic codes that are relevant to the
clinical findings.  If action taken
remains adverse to the veteran, the RO
should provide a supplemental statement of
the case to the veteran and his
representative.  The supplemental
statement of the case should contain a
recitation of all relevant evidence, a
citation to the relevant law and
regulations, and a statement of the
reasons for action taken.  The appropriate
period of time should be provided for
response.  Thereafter, the case should be
returned to the Board for further
appellate consideration, if otherwise in
order.

By this action the Board intimates no opinion, legal or factual,
as to the ultimate determination in this case.  No action by the
veteran is required until he receives further notice.
          (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

          ___________________________________
          N. R. ROBIN
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).