BVA9501643 
DOCKET NO.  93-12 324     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Paul,
Minnesota

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an effective date previous to June 5, 1992, for
the grant of service connection for bilateral tinnitus.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Hilary L. Goodman, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active service from April 1967 to February 1969.
This appeal arises from a January 1993 rating decision which
granted service connection for bilateral tinnitus, and assigned a
10 percent disability evaluation, effective from June 5, 1992.

The veteran's representative has asserted that a June 1969 rating
decision which granted the veteran's claim for service connection
for the residuals of a left hand injury but did not grant service
connection for bilateral tinnitus was clearly and unmistakably
erroneous.  The question of the veteran's possible entitlement to
an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for
bilateral tinnitus based on clear and unmistakable error in a
June 1969 rating decision should be resolved prior to appellate
consideration of the issue currently certified an appeal, as
favorable action on this new issue might render this current
issue moot.  See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991).

In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that the case should be
REMANDED to the originating agency for the following action:

1.  The originating agency should
adjudicate the claim that the June 1969
rating decision was clearly and
unmistakably erroneous in not granting
service connection for bilateral tinnitus.

2.  The veteran and his representative are
to be informed of the determination by
letter that includes notification of
appellate rights.  If a notice of
disagreement is received, a supplemental
statement of the case should be issued.
The veteran and his representative should
be afforded the appropriate period of time
in which to respond.  The veteran is to be
informed that if there is an intent to
appeal a determination regarding the claim
of clear and unmistakable error, there is a
duty to enter a substantive appeal.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further
consideration, if in order.  The purpose of this REMAND is to
afford the veteran due process.

          GARY L. GICK
          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 deter-
mination.  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 action has been taken in
accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).