BVA9503653 
DOCKET NO.  92-10 451     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Providence,
Rhode Island

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral defective
hearing.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on
appeal from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Providence, Rhode Island, Regional Office (RO).  The
veteran had active military service from November 1943 to April
1946.

Following a remand of this case in October 1993, and development
undertaken by the RO pursuant thereto, the veteran was granted
service connection for bilateral otitis media with perforation of
the left tympanic membrane and a 10 percent rating was assigned.
Service connection for bilateral defective hearing continued to
be denied and that issue was returned to the Board for further
appellate consideration.

REMAND

We begin by noting that the issue stated on the title page of
this decision is considered to be before the Board on the basis
of primary, presumptive and secondary service connection, and all
aspects of the service connection issue will be based on a de
novo review of the record.  The RO correctly ascertained that the
principal focus at the current time is on the question of
secondary service connection.

The RO is currently denying secondary service connection for
bilateral defective hearing for the reason that the veteran
failed to report for a VA audiometric examination.  This would be
the correct result, assuming he was properly notified.  This
member of the Board is concerned that there may have been a
breakdown in communication between the veteran and the VA
audiology clinic.

The evidence of record indicates that in 1992 the veteran was
living on [redacted] Avenue in Providence, Rhode Island, and that
correspondence sent to him at a [redacted] Street address had been
returned as undeliverable in June 1992.  The June 1992
correspondence was remailed to the [redacted] Avenue address.
However, after June 1992 all correspondence from the RO and the
VA outpatient treatment clinic to the veteran was mailed to the
[redacted] Street address.  Initially, this raises a question as to
what the veteran received and what he did not receive.

On November 10, 1993, the RO notified the veteran that
arrangements were being made for an examination and that he would
be notified of the time and place of the examination.
Thereafter, on November 23, 1993, a computer generated document
indicated that the veteran failed to report for an audiometric
examination.  On January 10, 1994, the RO notified the veteran
that arrangements were being made for an examination and that he
would be advised of the time and place of the examination.  He
was then advised by the VA Medical Administration Service that
the examination was scheduled for January 25, 1994, and, on that
date he appeared and underwent a VA otological examination.  It
is not clear why an audiometric examination could not have been
accomplished at the same time.

In any event, the question about the correct address and the fact
that the veteran did report for the otological examination,
raises a question about whether he was properly notified to
report for the VA audiometric examination.  In this regard we
note that a copy of any letter from the VA Medical Administration
Service to the veteran advising him to report for a VA
audiometric examination between November 10, 1993, and November
25, 1993 is not in the claims folder.

The case is Remanded for the following action:

1.  The RO should verify the veteran's
current correct address based on the
discussion above, and, if necessary, ask
his representative for assistance.

2.  Once the above has been accomplished,
the veteran should be accorded a VA
audiometric examination to ascertain the
presence or absence of bilateral defective
hearing pursuant to VA Standards, as set
forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (1994).  Copies
of all correspondence concerning this
examination from the RO and the VA
audiology clinic (Medical Administration
Service) to the veteran must be placed in
the claims folder.

When the above development has been completed, the case should be
reviewed by the RO.  If the benefit appealed for is not granted,
the veteran and his representative should be provided with a
supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable time
to reply thereto.  Thereafter, the case should be returned to the

Board for further appellate consideration, as required.  No
action is required of the veteran until notified.  The purpose of
this remand is to procure clarifying data.

          BRUCE E. HYMAN
          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) (1994).