BVA9508262 
DOCKET NO.  92-04 468     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee,
Oklahoma

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for a chronic headache
disorder claimed as being secondary to the service-connected
residuals of skull fracture.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a seizure disorder
claimed as being secondary to the service-connected residuals of
skull fracture.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for residuals of right leg
amputation claimed as being secondary to the service-connected
residuals of right femur fracture.

4.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for residuals
of skull fracture.

5.  Entitlement to a total disability rating based on
unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

P. H. Mathis, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active service from June 1955 to May 1961.  This
matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma.

The Board remanded the case to the RO in April 1993 to further
develop the clinical evidence, including by having the veteran
scheduled for hospitalization for observation and examination.  A
VA message, dated April 28, 1994, reflects that the veteran had
been contacted twice that month (4-18 and 4-26), and that he
stated both times that he did not wish to pursue his claim,
because "it's too much trouble."  The veteran also declined
admission to a VA neurology service for an examination (4-18),
and stated that he would not report for any outpatient
evaluations (4-26).

In the 1993 Remand, the Board noted that a substantive appeal may
be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates
a decision.  Withdrawal may be by the appellant or his
representative, except that the representative must have the
express written consent of the appellant.  38 C.F.R. § 20.204
(1994).  The Board noted its concern that a decision on the
merits of the claim might be prejudicial to the veteran, when he
had in effect renounced any intention of pursuing the claim.  The
Board instructed the RO to request that the veteran express his
intentions in writing regarding either continuation of the appeal
or its termination.

In November 1994, the RO requested that the veteran respond in
writing concerning whether he wanted to continue or terminate the
appeal.  No response was received from the veteran.  However, the
Board notes that the RO's letter was mailed to an address
different from that previously of record.  It is the judgment of
the Board that the VA's duty to assist in the development of the
claim requires additional action by the RO prior to a decision on
the merits of the claims.  Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following actions:

1.  The RO should take any reasonable
action to determine the veteran's correct
mailing address, including, but not limited
to, requesting the assistance of the
representative in contacting the veteran.
The veteran should be apprised of the
importance of his response to the request
for his written decision concerning whether
he is continuing or terminating the appeal.

2.  If the appeal is continued, the RO
should implement the action requested in
the April 14, 1993, Remand by this Board,
undertake any other indicated development,
readjudicate the issues currently certified
on appeal, and adjudicate any additional
claims presented.

Thereafter, in accordance with proper appellate procedures, the
case should be returned to the Board for further appellate
review, if otherwise in order.

In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either
legal or factual, as to any final outcome warranted.  The
appellant need take no action until otherwise notified.

          F. JUDGE FLOWERS
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

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).