BVA9501314 DOCKET NO. 93- 07 115 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson, Mississippi THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for sinusitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for osteoarthritis of the knees. 3. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder. 4. Entitlement to service connection for reflux esophagitis. 5. Entitlement to service connection for ulcers. 6. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. 7. Entitlement to service connection for psoriasis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Mississippi Veterans Affairs Board ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. M. Barnard, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1952 to August 1972. This appeal arises from a September 1992 rating decision of the Jackson, Mississippi, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to the benefits sought. The undersigned has noted that the veteran has raised issues concerning a compensable evaluation for his sinusitis, as well as for service connection for reflux esophagitis, ulcers and hypertension. However, a final determination concerning these issues will be deferred pending the outcome of this remand. REMAND The veteran contends, in essence, that he should be service connected for arthritis in his knees, for an eye disorder and for psoriasis involving his hands. He asserts that he was first seen for complaints of swelling in the knees in May 1973 and again in November 1974 at the Naval Base Dispensary in Gulfport. He further alleges that the intensive reading that he was required to perform as part of his in-service duties aggravated his amblyopia. Finally, he states that the psoriasis that has been diagnosed on his hands is the same condition from which he suffered, and from which he still suffers, on his feet. He alleges that this is all part of the same disorder and that it should, therefore, be service-connected. VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of all facts pertinent to his claims. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993).This would include the duty to obtain all relevant treatment records to which the veteran has referred, as well as the duty to obtain VA examinations which are an adequate basis upon which to determine entitlement to the benefits sought. Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1991). This would include examinations by specialists, when recommended by the facts of the case. Hyder v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991). It is also noted that, in regards to medical opinions, VA must rely on independent medical conclusions. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171 (1991). In the instant case, the veteran indicated, in a December 1992 statement, that he was first seen for complaints of swelling in the knee joints in May 1973, and again in November 1974, at the Naval Base Dispensary in Gulfport, Mississippi. He also stated that arthritis of the knees was diagnosed at Keesler Air Force Base in 1977. Despite the fact that these records would be relevant in the veteran's attempt to establish service connection for arthritis in the knees, the RO made no attempt to obtain the indicated records. It is also noted that the appellant has alleged that intensive reading in service aggravated his eye disorder, and that a skin condition from which he suffers on his hands is directly related to a disorder involving his feet that he experienced in service. Despite these assertions, the VA examination conducted in August 1992 contains no reference to these disorders or the relationships between them and the veteran's period of service. Finally, the record reveals that the veteran served his first period of duty from June 1952 to May 1955. However, there are no service medical records from this period of active duty, nor is there any indication that the RO ever searched for them. Under the circumstances of this case, the undersigned finds that additional assistance is necessary, and this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The RO should contact the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, and request that they conduct a search for any service medical records pertaining to the veteran developed between June 1952 and May 1955. 2. The RO should contact the Naval Base Dispensary in Gulfport, Mississippi, and request that they provide copies of records pertaining to the treatment of the veteran in May 1973 and November 1974. 3. The RO should contact Keesler Air Force Base and request that they provide copies of any records pertaining to treatment of the veteran in 1977. 4. Once the above-requested records have been obtained and associated with the record, the RO should provide the veteran orthopedic, opthomalogical, and dermatological examinations. The opthomalogical examination should include an opinion as to whether the conditions of the veteran's service, specifically intensive reading, caused in increase in severity of his diagnosed amblyopia. The dermatological examination should include an opinion as to whether any diagnosed skin disorder involving the veteran's hands is related to the skin disorder of the feet from which he suffered in service. All indicated special studies should be performed. The claims folder must be made available to the examiners prior to the examinations so that the veteran's entire history can be taken into consideration. In the event that the veteran's claims remain denied, in whole or in part, he and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case, and an opportunity to respond, and the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration if otherwise in order. C. P. RUSSELL 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).