BVA9500922 
DOCKET NO.  93-05 865     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder,
variously classified.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C.A. Skow, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The appellant served on active duty from August 1965 to August
1968.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from a September 1991 rating decision of the
Waco, Texas, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office
(VARO).

The Board notes that the appellant has mentioned entitlement to
service connection for arthritis of the shoulders, arms, and
legs, a musculoskeletal disorder, and fibroid tumors.  However,
since these matters have not been previously developed,
adjudicated, or certified for appeal, they are referred to VARO
for appropriate action.

In March 1993, the appellant's claim for service connection for a
psychiatric disorder was certified to the Board.  However, within
the 90-day period immediately after the appeal was certified to
the Board, additional private medical treatment records were
received in support the appellant's claim.  These records
received at the Board include medical reports from Kaiser
Permanente dating from 1982 to 1992, the Veterans Administration
dated from 1992 to 1993, duplicate service medical records, and a
private psychiatric report from Louis E. Deere, D.O.  This
evidence was associated with the claims folder.

After reviewing the claims folder and the additional evidence,
the Board finds that there is no indication that this evidence
was formally reviewed by VARO since the medical evidence was sent
directly to Washington, D.C.  The Board notes that some of the
newly received medical reports address the appellant's alleged
psychiatric disability which is currently on appeal, and, as
such, they are clearly relevant to the matter at hand.

The additional medical evidence has been timely filed at the
Board pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (1992).  All evidence
accepted by the Board thereunder, if pertinent, must be referred
to VARO for review unless this procedural right is waived in
writing by the appellant.  We note that no such waiver is in
evidence, and we have reviewed this evidence.  Accordingly, this
evidence must be referred to VARO, as outlined in the above-cited
regulation, in order to insure that there is no violation of the
appellant's due process rights.

Furthermore, additional development is necessary to reconcile the
various psychiatric diagnoses reflected in the private medical
reports of record, and to clarify the diagnoses provided by Dr.
Deere in his May 1993 medical report.

Accordingly, to ensure full compliance with due process
requirements, the case is REMANDED to VARO for the following
development:

1.  VARO should request from Dr. Deere all
clinical records upon which he based his
diagnoses for major depression with
psychotic features, post-traumatic stress
disorder, generalized anxiety, and panic
attacks as shown on his medical report
dated May 1993.

2.  The appellant should be afforded a VA
psychiatric examination to identify all
currently manifested psychiatric disorders
and to determine their likely etiology.  If
post-traumatic stress disorder is
identifiable, the examiner should identify
the likely stressor, and whether or not the
stress disorder is related to any in-
service event(s).  Additionally, the
examiner should attempt to reconcile the
various diagnoses contained in the medical
evidence of record.  The claims folder
should be made available to the examiner
for review before the examination.

3.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
VARO should again review the record.  If
any benefit sought on appeal, for which a
notice of disagreement has been filed,
remains denied, the appellant and
representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond thereto.

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).