BVA9504998 
DOCKET NO.  93-10 035     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Diego,
California

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for a manic-depressive
disorder, currently rated as 50 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The veteran, his wife, and Murray Rosenthal, D.O.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Michael Martin, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active service from January 1956 to December
1959.  This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a decision of January 1992 by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Diego, California,
Regional Office (RO).  The decision denied the veteran's claim
for a disability rating higher than 50 percent for a manic
depressive disorder.

The Board notes that during a hearing held in August 1992, the
veteran testified that he had been granted disability benefits by
the Social Security Administration.  He stated that those
disability benefits were payable on account of his service
connected disorder.  Significantly, however, the evidence of
record does not include a copy of the decision by the Social
Security Administration or any of the evidence relied upon by the
Social Security Administration.  In Collier v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 413 (1991), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals
(Court) held that a decision by the Social Security
Administration is evidence which must be considered by the VA
when analyzing a claim for VA benefits.  For this reason, the
decision and associated evidence should be obtained from the
Social Security Administration.

The Board also notes that, although the evidence which has been
obtained includes several statements from the veteran's treating
physician, Murray Rosenthal, D.O., the actual treatment records
have not been obtained.  The Court held that the VA's duty to
assist a claimant with the development of evidence includes
obtaining all relevant medical treatment records.  See Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990).  Therefore, the treatment
records from Dr. Rosenthal should be obtained.

Finally, the Board notes that the report of a disability
evaluation examination conducted by the VA in January 1992 shows
that the examining physician requested the veteran's claims file
for the purpose of reviewing it in connection with the
examination; however, it was not made available to him.  The
folder should have been made available to the examiner for
review, as an understanding of the full history of the veteran's
psychiatric disorder is necessary for proper evaluation of the
veteran's psychiatric disorder.  See Green v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991).

The Board also notes that following the examination, the examiner
did not offer any opinions or conclusions regarding the severity
of the veteran's psychiatric disorder.  Such an assessment is a
necessary element of an examination which is for the purpose of
evaluating a claim for an increased rating.  For these reasons,
the Board finds that additional development of evidence is
warranted prior to further appellate review.  Accordingly, this
case is REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  The RO should contact the Social
Security Administration and obtain a copy
of the decision granting Social Security
Administration disability benefits to the
veteran, and copies of all items of
evidence considered by the Social Security
Administration in connection with that
claim for benefits.

2.  The RO should contact Murray Rosenthal,
D.O., and obtain copies of all of the
actual treatment and counseling records and
notes which have been prepared in
connection with treatment afforded to the
veteran.

3.  Once the above requested items of
evidence have been added to the claims
file, the veteran should be afforded a
psychiatric evaluation to determine the
current severity of his service-connected
manic-depressive disorder.  The examination
should include a social and industrial
survey and any psychological testing deemed
to be appropriate.  The claims folder must
be made available to the examiner for
review prior to and during the examination.
In the examination report, the examiner
should offer his opinion and conclusions
regarding the current severity of the
veteran's psychiatric disorder.  The report
should also include a global assessment of
the veteran's functioning (GAF), and an
explanation of the significance of the GAF
value which is assigned.

Upon completion of the foregoing, the RO should again consider
the veteran's claim for an increased rating.  If the benefit
sought on appeal is not granted, the RO should issue to the
veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the
case and allow them the appropriate period of time to respond.
Then, the case should be returned to the Board for further
appellate review.

          WARREN W. RICE, JR.
          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).