BVA9505447 
DOCKET NO.  92-24 704     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery,
Alabama

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
hypertension.

2.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
degenerative joint disease of the cervical spine.

3.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of left acromioclavicular joint separation.

4.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of a non-displaced fracture of the right wrist.

5.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of an avulsion fracture of the right ankle.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

James R. Siegel, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from December 1971 until his
retirement in December 1991.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from an April 1992 rating decision of the
Regional Office (RO) which granted service connection and
assigned noncompensable evaluations for each disability at issue;
additionally, it assigned a single, 10-percent evaluation for
multiple, noncompensable service-connected disabilities pursuant
to 38 C.F.R. 3.324.

When this case was before the Board in June 1994, it was remanded
for a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical examination and
copies of all treatment records referred to by the veteran.
During the ensuing examination in September 1994, the veteran
related that he was receiving ongoing treatment from Dr.
Pinchback for his right ankle and right wrist disorders.  The RO,
however, did not attempt to obtain the treatment records from Dr.
Pinchback.

The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).
The Court has held that the duty to assist the veteran in
obtaining and developing available facts and evidence to support
his claim includes obtaining adequate VA examination.  This duty
is neither optional nor discretionary.  Littke v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 90 (1990).  This duty also includes providing additional
VA examinations by a specialist when recommended.  Hyder v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991).  The fulfillment of the
statutory duty to assist includes conducting a thorough and
contemporaneous medical examination, one which takes into account
the records of prior medical treatment, so that the evaluation of
the claimed disability will be a fully informed one.  Green v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that
additional development of the evidentiary record is required.  To
do otherwise would surely amount to a breach of the statutory
duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim.  See
Smith v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 335, 340 (1993).

In view of the development requested below, the Board will defer
appellate consideration of the issues of entitlement to increased
(compensable) evaluations for hypertension, degenerative joint
disease of the cervical spine and residuals of left
acromioclavicular joint separation.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for action as
follows:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and
request that he furnish the address and
approximate dates of treatment furnished him
by Dr. Pinchback for his right wrist and
right ankle since January 1992.  After
securing the necessary authorization forms
for release of this information, the RO
should seek to obtain copies of all clinical
treatment records referred to by the veteran
for association with the claims folder.

2.  In the event the clinical treatment
records from Dr. Pinchback reveal that the
conditions at issue on appeal have undergone
significant change since the September 1994
VA examination, the veteran should then be
afforded a VA medical examination to
determine the nature and extent of his
current disability.  All necessary tests
should be performed.  The claims folder
should be made available to the examiner in
conjunction with the examination.

Following completion of the above, the RO should review the
evidence and determine whether the veteran's claim may now be
granted.  If not, he and his representative should be furnished
an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and they
should be provided the opportunity to respond thereto.

The case should then be returned to the Board for further
appellate consideration.

          J.F. GOUGH
          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).