BVA9502933 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 758     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston,
Massachusetts

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a service-connected
low back disorder (chronic low back pain, status post lumbar
fusion), currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Christopher P. Kissel, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The appellant served on active duty from September 1980 to
January 1981, and from October 1989 to October 1992.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board)
on appeal from a December 1992 rating decision of the Boston,
Massachusetts, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office
(VARO).

The undersigned notes that the claims file contains the report of
an electromyogram (EMG) nerve conduction velocity test that was
conducted on December 4, 1992, in conjunction with a VA
compensation examination ordered to evaluate the extent of
disability of the appellant's service-connected low back
disorder.  This evidence was received by VARO prior to the
transfer of the claims file to the Board.  There is no indication
that this evidence was formally reviewed by VARO in any rating
action subsequent to the issuance of the statement of the case in
January 1993.  The medical records, cited above, are not
duplicative of records previously considered by VARO and are
clearly relevant to the claim on appeal.  Pursuant to 38 C.F.R.
§ 19.37(a), evidence which is not duplicative in nature and which
is relevant to the issues on appeal must be referred to VARO for
review and preparation of a supplemental statement of the case.

The Board notes that the appellant raised additional claims
during the pendency of this appeal.  See Appellant's Substantive
Appeal, VA Form 1-9 (January 30, 1993).  In view of the
additional development which necessitates this remand, noted
above, the undersigned believes that consolidation of all of the
appellant's claims which are appealed to the Board is preferable
to piecemeal adjudication.  See Hoyer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.
208 (1991).  Prior to recertification of the increased rating
claim to the Board, if warranted by the course of adjudication
below, VARO should consolidate all of the claims which the
appellant desires to appeal to the Board.

Accordingly, in view of the above, this case is REMANDED for the
following action:

1.  VARO should readjudicate the claim now
pending on appeal, considering the
additional medical evidence, cited above.
Thereafter, the appellant should be
furnished a supplemental statement of the
case, and he and his representative
afforded an opportunity to reply thereto.

2.  VARO should develop and adjudicate the
additional claims which have been raised by
the appellant, as noted above in this
remand.  Any evidentiary/medical
development deemed appropriate to the
adjudication of those claims should be
undertaken.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome
of this case.  The appellant need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          C. P. RUSSELL
          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).