BVA9507379 
DOCKET NO.  93-14 150     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery,
Alabama

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a total disability rating due to individual
unemployability.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

T. Reichelderfer, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from June 1943 to February
1947.

This case arises from a rating decision dated in July 1992 from
the Montgomery, Alabama, Regional Office (RO).

After the case was certified for appeal, additional evidence was
received.  The regional office has not had an opportunity to
review the evidence.

REMAND

The veteran contends that he is totally disabled and unemployable
due to his service connected disabilities, particularly his post-
traumatic stress disorder.  After a review of the record, the
Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) is of the opinion that
addition development and adjudication is required prior to
further consideration of this case.

The veteran claims that he has not worked since 1977.  The report
of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examination, dated in
June 1991, notes that the veteran stated he retired from a
civilian U.S. government position due to medical reasons.  The
Board believes that records relative to the veteran's retirement
from government service would be of probative value in assessing
his claim for a total disability rating due to individual
unemployability.

The Board notes that a rating decision, dated in April 1993,
denied an increased disability rating for post-traumatic stress
disorder.  The substantive appeal (VA Form 9), that was received
in May 1993 concerning his claim for a total disability rating
due to unemployability, also expressed disagreement with the
decision concerning post-traumatic stress disorder.
Additionally, the Informal Hearing Presentation before the Board
by the veteran's representative, dated in August 1993, indicates
an issue of clear and unmistakable error in the April 1993 rating
decision with regard to the rating for post-traumatic stress
disorder.  However, this issue was not certified for appellate
review and to raise an issue of clear and unmistakable error,
there must be a final decision, which is not the case here.  See
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105(a), 3.160(d) (1994).  The VA Form 9 that was
received in May 1993 will be considered as a notice of
disagreement with the April 1993 rating decision concerning the
rating for post-traumatic stress disorder.  Since this issue has
not been developed for appellate review, it is referred to the RO
for appropriate action.

In July 1993, a VA examiner entered the opinion that the
veteran's psychiatric illness was sufficient to prevent any sort
of employment.  The examiner did not identify which psychiatric
disorder or provide reasons for the opinion.

The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that
the duty to assist veterans in the development of facts pertinent
to their claims, under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991) and 38
C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993), as set forth by the Court in Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990), requires that VA accomplish
additional development of the evidence if the record currently
before it is inadequate.  Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for
the following:

1.  The RO should ascertain from the
veteran the name of the U.S. Government
agency and the location of the employing
office from which he retired.

2.  Following receipt of the above
information, the RO should request from the
appropriate government agency or records
repository, copies of records pertaining to
the circumstances of the veteran's
retirement, including any medical records,
following receipt of any necessary
authorizations for the release of such
information.

3.  The veteran should be afforded a
psychiatric examination and a social and
industrial survey.  The examiner should
enter a Global Assessment of Functioning
scale, and an explanation of the score.  If
there are multiple diagnoses, a separate
GAF score for the service-connected
disability should be entered.

4.  Following completion of the above, the
RO should again consider the evidence of
record, including the records received
pursuant to this REMAND and the medical
statement of July 1993, and determine if a
total disability rating due to individual
unemployability can be granted.  The RO
should also take the appropriate actions,
pursuant to the provisions of 38 C.F.R.
§ 19.26 (1994), with regard to the notice
of disagreement concerning the issue of
entitlement to an increased disability
rating for post-traumatic stress disorder.
If a decision remains adverse to the
veteran, he and his representative should
be provided with a supplemental statement
of the case, and with a reasonable period
of time within which to respond thereto.
The case should thereafter be returned to
the Board for further consideration as
appropriate.

The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this
case.  The appellant need take no action until he is so informed.
The purposes of this REMAND are to obtain additional evidence and
to ensure compliance with due process considerations.

          H. N. SCHWARTZ
          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.
          (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

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).