BVA9505149 
DOCKET NO.  93-14 250     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Fort Harrison,
Montana

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased rating for diabetes mellitus with
minimal diabetic retinopathy, currently rated as 60 percent
disabling.

2.  Entitlement to an increased rating for a coronary artery
bypass with hypertension, currently rated as 30 percent
disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Montana Veterans Affairs
Division

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Andrew Ahlberg, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from February 1966 to July
1968.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter Board) on appeal from adverse rating action by the
Fort Harrison, Montana,  Regional Office (hereinafter RO).

REMAND

The Board received clinical records in July 1993 pertaining to
treatment of the veteran's service-connected disabilities and a
letter from the veteran with an attached statement from a private
physician was received by the Board in September 1993.  However,
there is no indication from the veteran that he wished to waive
consideration of this evidence by the RO, as is required by
38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c).

The veteran was last afforded a VA examination in June 1992.  The
veteran in his June 1993 substantive appeal and the veteran's
representative through a VA Form
1-646 received in that month essentially contended that this
examination was inadequate.  In light of these contentions and
the fact that there was an indication in the statement from the
private physician received in September 1993 that the veteran's
service-connected disabilities have progressed to the point that
he is not able to "carry out his usual work activities", the
Board concludes that the veteran should be afforded another VA
examination.  Moreover, given the holding in EF v Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 324 (1991), which held that issues should be liberally
construed based on all the evidence of record, including clinical
records, the Board concludes that the RO should contact the
veteran to determine whether he wishes to file a claim for a
total disability rating for compensation based on individual
unemployability.  Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the
following development.

1.  The RO is to contact the veteran to
determine whether he wishes to pursue a
claim for a total disability rating for
compensation based on individual
unemployability.  A VA Form 21-8940 should
be furnished to the veteran for his use if
he wishes to pursue such a claim.

2.  The veteran is to be afforded a VA
examination to evaluate the severity of the
his diabetes and service connected
cardiovascular disorder.  The examination
should include another stress test, and to
the extent that the veteran cannot complete
such a test, the examiner should comment on
the degree of industrial impairment, if
any, represented by any inability to
complete the test.  The examiner is to also
express an opinion as to the degree to
which the veteran's diabetes and service-
connected cardiovascular disorders,
separate and apart from any other
disorders, interfere with his ability to
function normally in the workplace.

Following completion of the requested development, the RO should
review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claims
for increased ratings for diabetes and the service-connected
cardiovascular disorder may be granted.  In making these
determinations, the RO is to consider any evidence received at
the Board in July and September 1993 which was not previously
considered by the RO.  If either claim is denied, the veteran and
his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of
the case, to include citations to the relevant laws and
regulations as needed, and the case should be returned to the
Board for further appellate review.  The purpose of this REMAND
is to assist the veteran in the development of his appeal, and
the Board does not intimate an opinion, either legal or factual,
as to the ultimate disposition warranted in this case.  No action
is required of the veteran until he is notified.

          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).