BVA9503292 
DOCKET NO.  92-10 112     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Wichita, Kansas

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for diabetes mellitus,
currently evaluated as 60 disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. F. Gussio,  Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from October 1961 to
November 1974.

In a decision issued in April 1993, the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board ) denied the veteran's claims for a reopening of
his claim for service connection for tinnitus based on the
submission of new and material evidence, for entitlement to an
increased (compensable) rating for bilateral hearing loss, and
for entitlement to an increased rating for diabetes mellitus
rated as 60 percent disabling.  The veteran filed a timely appeal
to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court).  In a
decision dated in September 1994, the Court affirmed the Board's
decision to deny the veteran's claim for a reopening of his claim
for service connection for tinnitus on the basis of new and
material evidence and for entitlement to an increased
(compensable) rating for bilateral hearing loss.  However, the
Court vacated that portion of the decision which denied
entitlement to an increased rating for diabetes mellitus, rated
60 percent disabling.  That issue was remanded to the Board for
readjudication.

REMAND

In the Court's decision dated in September 1994, the Court
instructed the Board to address whether aspects of the
appellant's diabetes mellitus were compensable under different
diagnostic codes, as directed by 38 C.F.R. Diagnostic Code 7913,
which states, in part, that "[d]efinitely established
complications such as...impairment of central visual acuity,
peripheral neuropathy with definite sensory or motor impairment
or definitely established arteriosclerotic focalizations will be
separately rated under the applicable diagnostic codes."  38
C.F.R. § 4.119, DC 7913, Note.  The Court further pointed out
that the veteran's file included references to peripheral
neuropathy in an October 1988 VA medical record and, also,
references to changes of diabetic retinopathy.

The Board notes that it has been more than four years since the
veteran was last examined by the VA.

The VA has a duty to assist a veteran in the development of 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 (1994).  That
duty includes obtaining medical records and medical examinations
where indicated by the facts and circumstances of the case.
Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990).  In light of the
Court's decision dated in September 1994, this case is remanded
to the RO for the following action.

1.  The RO should obtain and associate with
the claims file records of all treatment
for diabetes mellitus the veteran has
received since his most recent VA
examination in August 1990.

2.  The RO should schedule the veteran for
VA examinations by appropriate specialists
to determine the current severity of his
diabetes mellitus,including any residual
complications.  The veteran's claims folder
should be made available for review prior
to the examinations.  All indicated studies
should be accomplished.  The examiners
should specifically comment on whether the
veteran has definitely established diabetic
complications such as impairment of central
visual acuity, peripheral neuropathy with
definite sensory or motor impairment, or
definitely established arteriosclerotic
focalizations.  The examiners' findings
should be reported in detail.

3.  Following this, the RO should
readjudicate the issue of entitlement to an
increased disability rating for diabetes
mellitus and, in addition, specifically
address the question of whether separate
ratings should be assigned for any diabetic
complications found.  The RO should apply
all pertinent codes.

When the above-requested development is completed, the case
should again be reviewed by the RO.  If any of the adjudicatory
determinations are adverse, the veteran and his representative
should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the
case.  After they have had an adequate opportunity to respond,
the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate
review, if in order.  The purposes of this REMAND are to afford
the veteran due process of law and to obtain clarifying data.

The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this
case.  The appellant need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          J. U. JOHNSON
          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).