BVA9507692 
DOCKET NO.  93- 12 669    )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Buffalo, New
York

THE ISSUES

Entitlement to service connection for seborrheic dermatitis,
seborrheic keratosis, and chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis due
to exposure to ionizing radiation and/or exposure to the sun.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: New York Division of Veterans'
Affairs

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

P. J. McCarty, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from November 1948 to September
1952.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a November 1991 decision of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Buffalo, New York.

REMAND

The veteran essentially contends that service connection is
warranted for seborrheic dermatitis, seborrheic keratosis, and
chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis as they initially manifested
in service as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation from
radar tubes and/or exposure to the sun.

The Board notes that during the pendency of this appeal, a final
rule was promulgated, effective September 1, 1994, and set forth
at 60 Fed. Reg. 9627-28 (1995), that amended 38 C.F.R. § 3.311
(1994) to comport with Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir.
1994), reversing in part Combee v. Principi,  4 Vet.App. 78
(1993), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (Court) determined that section 5 of the
Veteran's Dioxin and Radiation-Exposure Compensation Standards
Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-542, 98 Stat. 2725, 2727-29, did not
preclude, or authorize the VA to preclude, a claimant from
proving that a veteran developed a disability as a result of
exposure to ionizing radiation under the provisions of 38
U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1994),
despite the fact that the claimed disability is not a potentially
radiogenic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311b (now 3.311).  In such
cases, a claimant must be given an opportunity to prove that
exposure to ionizing radiation during service actually caused the
claimed disability and that service connection is therefore
warranted under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, and 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.303(d).  Further, the above-mentioned final rule deletes 38
C.F.R. § 3.311(h) that established a list of diseases exclusive
to radiation exposure and redefines the term "radiogenic disease"
as a disease that may be induced by ionizing radiation.  60 Fed.
Reg. 9627.
Further, the Board notes that the veteran contends that he
received treatment for his skin disorders from 1952 to 1983 from
a Dr. Walker and a Dr. Hunt, both of whom are deceased.  The RO
should request that the veteran provide the full names and
addresses of the doctors' offices in order to locate any possible
records pertaining to treatment received by the veteran.

In light of the above, the Board concludes that further
development is necessary prior to final disposition of this case.
Consequently, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
actions:

1.  The veteran should be requested to
provide the names, addresses, and
approximate dates of treatment for all VA
and non-VA health care providers who have
treated him for any skin disorder at any
time since service.  With any necessary
authorization, the RO should attempt to
obtain copies of all postservice treatment
reports identified by the veteran which
have not been previously secured.
Specifically, the veteran should be
requested to provide the full names and
addresses for Dr. Hunt and Dr. Walker, and
the approximate dates of treatment, so
that the RO may locate any treatment
records pertaining to the veteran.

2.  Then, the veteran should be afforded
an opportunity to submit evidence of
actual exposure to radiation in service
and medical or other competent evidence to
support his claims that there is a causal
relationship between his service exposure
to radiation and his development of
seborrheic dermatitis, seborrheic
keratosis, and chondrodermatitis nodularis
helicis.

3.  Thereafter, the RO should undertake
any other indicated development, to
include development under 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.311 if appropriate.

4.  Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate
the issues of entitlement to service
connection for seborrheic dermatitis,
seborrheic keratosis, and
chondrodermatitis nodularis helicis due to
exposure to ionizing radiation, including
consideration of the Court's decision in
Combee, supra, and the amendments to 38
C.F.R. § 3.311 as set forth in 60 Fed.
Reg. 9627-28 (1995).

If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the veteran's
satisfaction, or if a timely notice of disagreement is received
with respect to any other matter, the veteran and his
representative should be provided with a Supplemental Statement
of the Case on all issues in appellate status, and given an
opportunity to respond.  Thereafter, the case should be returned
to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in
order.  By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to any
final outcome warranted.  No action is required of the veteran
until he is notified by the RO.

          ROBERT E. 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.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).