BVA9500067 
DOCKET NO.  93-04 971     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke,
Virginia

THE ISSUE

Whether new and material evidence sufficient to reopen a claim
for service connection for residuals of a head injury has been
submitted.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. J. Bohanan, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The appellant served on active duty from September 1973 to
January 1974 and from July 1975 to September 1975.

This appeal arises from an April 1991 Department of Veterans
Affairs, Roanoke, Virginia (VARO) rating decision, which denied
the appellant's claim for service connection for the residuals of
a head injury.  VARO determined that no new and material evidence
had been submitted to warrant the reopening of the veteran's
claim, which had been previously denied by the Board of Veterans'
Appeals in a June 1978 decision.

In the appellant's July 1992 substantive appeal, and his March
1993 written argument, he claimed that he was injured during
service when lockers fell on him.  He further claimed that he was
hospitalized for 4 to 5 weeks at Fort Dix.  However, he reported
that these military treatment records are not associated with his
claims folder and requested that an additional attempt be made to
obtain these records.  He also requested, through his accredited
representative, that medical treatment records establishing
chronicity be obtained from the Federal Correctional Institution
in Morgantown, West Virginia.

The VA has a duty to assist a veteran in developing facts
pertinent to a potentially well grounded claim.  38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103, 3.159 (1993).  That
duty includes obtaining medical records and medical examinations
where indicated by the facts and circumstances of an individual
case.  See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App 78 (1990); Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990).

The Board believes that further development of the evidence is
necessary in this case.  Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 22
(1991).  The case is therefore REMANDED to VARO for the following
actions:

1.  VARO should attempt to obtain the
appellant's complete medical treatment
records from the Federal Correctional
Institute in Morgantown, West Virginia.
Proper authorization for the release of
such information should be obtained from
the appellant.  If any of the attempts to
secure either an authorization for release
or records are unsuccessful, any efforts
expended should be documented.

2.  VARO should also attempt to obtain the
service medical records from Fort Dix
referred to by the appellant.  All records
obtained should be associated with the
appellant's claims folder.

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).