BVA9502627 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 719     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South
Carolina

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

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 October 1947 to October 1951.

This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from
the March 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) Columbia, South Carolina which
denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss.

To the extent that statements made by the veteran in April and
May 1992 may be construed to constitute a claim for a compensable
evaluation for his service connected residuals of a simple
fracture of the right distal tibia, without nerve or artery
involvement, that issue has not been developed for appellate
review and is referred to the RO for consideration and action as
appropriate.

REMAND

It is contended by and on behalf of the veteran that he is
entitled to service connection for bilateral hearing loss,
incurred as a result of acoustic trauma during service.

The Board notes that the veteran's service medical records are
mostly unavailable and are presumed to have been destroyed in the
1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis,
Missouri.  Of record are sick call reports for March through July
1949 which contain no reference to complaint or treatment of
hearing loss.  The veteran testified at his July 1992 personal
hearing that he had no hearing deficiency prior to active
service, that he was subjected to acoustic trauma as a gunner in
Korea, and that he has had hearing loss ever since.  His current
hearing loss was documented by audiological testing during his
August 1992 VA compensation examination.  Under the
circumstances, the Board finds that the veteran's claim is well
grounded.  The Board is mindful that in a case, such as this one
where service medical records have been lost, there is a
heightened duty to assist the veteran in developing the evidence
that might support his claim. Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 542,
548 (1992).
Accordingly, 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 his employers subsequent
to service, and the approximate dates of
his employment.  The RO should also
request that the veteran identify the
railroad which declined to hire him
because he was unable to pass a hearing
test six months after his separation from
service.

2.  After any necessary releases have been
obtained, the RO should contact the
employers identified by the veteran and
request that they provide the results of
any employee hearing tests pertaining to
the veteran.  The RO should also ask the
employers to describe, if possible, the
level of noise exposure to which the
veteran was subjected while employed by
them, and to state whether ear protection
was utilized.  Each employer should also
be asked to provide copies of any
additional records of events related to
the veteran's hearing, or to describe such
events if no record was made at the time.

3.  The RO should contact the railroad
identified by the veteran and attempt to
obtain the results of the hearing test
which he failed six months after service,
or any other records pertaining to the
veteran that have been maintained by the
railroad.  All records and documents
received should be associated with the
veteran's claims folder.

4.  Following completion of all requested
development the RO should again review the
veteran's claim for service connection for
bilateral hearing loss.  If action 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, with special attention to
38 U.S.C.A. § 1154 (West 1991) 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.

          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).