BVA9501192 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 564     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans,
Louisiana

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an effective date earlier than May 20, 1991,
for the granting of service connection for post traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).

2.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen the claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Brynn K. Bloomgren, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION

The appellant had active service from July 1968 to July 1970.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter the Board) on appeal from an October 1991 rating
decision of the New Orleans, Louisiana, Regional Office
(hereinafter RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(hereinafter VA), which denied entitlement to an earlier
effective date for the granting of service-connection for PTSD,
and found that new and material evidence had not been submitted
to reopen the claim for service connection for bilateral pes
planus.

The veteran has raised the issues of entitlement to an increased
evaluation for PTSD as well entitlement to a total rating based
on individual unemployability.  These issues are not in appellate
status at this time, and we refer them back to the RO for
appropriate action.

REMAND

The veteran contends that entitlement to an earlier effective
date for service-connected PTSD is warranted.  He claims that his
PTSD symptoms began over twenty years ago.  The veteran also
claims that new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen the claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus.

The veteran testified, during his personal hearing in April 1992,
that he was treated for pes planus on numerous occasions
immediately after separation from service at the VA hospital and
VA Medical Center (VAMC) on Canal Street in New Orleans,
Louisiana.  The hearing officer promised to obtain these records,
but it does not appear that follow-up attempts have been made.
The VA has a duty to obtain all relevant medical records under 38
U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991), especially those within the province
of the VA;  Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 82 (1990);  See
also Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1991).

Further, we note that additional evidence, relating to the issue
of whether the claim for service connection for bilateral pes
planus has been reopened, was received at the RO without a waiver
by the veteran of the RO's consideration, after the claims folder
was transferred to the Board.  The evidence was thereupon
forwarded to the Board as required by 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(b)
(1994).  Any pertinent evidence submitted by the appellant and
forwarded to the Board under 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(b) must be
referred to the agency of original jurisdiction for review and
preparation of a supplemental statement of the case unless this
procedural right is waived by the appellant.  38 C.F.R.
§ 20.1304(c) (1994).

Based on the foregoing, this case is REMANDED for the following
development:

The RO should obtain and associate with the
claims file VA hospital and outpatient
treatment reports, to include the VAMC on
Canal Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, dated
during the first year after separation from
service.

After the requested development has been completed to the extent
possible, the RO should again review the record.  If the benefits
sought on appeal are not granted, the RO should furnish the
veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the
case, including a summary of the relevant evidence, citation to
the applicable diagnostic codes, and reasons and bases for the
decision, and be afforded the opportunity to respond before the
record is returned to the Board for further appellate review.

The purpose of this remand is to obtain additional development
and the Board does not intimate any opinion as to the merits of
the case.  No further action is required of the veteran until he
is notified.

          (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

          JACK W. BLASINGAME
          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).