BVA9505775 
DOCKET NO.  93-01 725     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta,
Georgia

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for degenerative
changes, first metatarsal, right foot, status post osteotomy,
currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling.

2.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for
degenerative changes, first metatarsal, left foot.

3.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for
psoriasis.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

William H. Hickman, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active duty military service from December 1982
to November 1990.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a July 1991 and subsequent rating decisions of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Atlanta, Georgia, Regional
Office (RO).  The case was previously before the Board in
September 1994 at which time it was remanded for further
development.  The case is now before the Board for appellate
review.

The Board notes that an R0 rating decision dated in December
1992, denied the veteran's claims for service connection for
right knee and low back disorders as being secondary to the
service-connected right foot disorder.  As no notice of
disagreement has been filed with respect to these issues, they
are not before the Board at this time.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

With respect to the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation
for the service-connected degenerative changes of the first
metatarsal of the right foot, it is alleged, essentially, that
the pathology has increased to include neurological symptoms
which in turn have caused the veteran to limp and has caused
interference with the veteran's ability to earn a living and,
therefore, a higher evaluation for this disorder is warranted.

With respect to the service-connected degenerative changes of the
first metatarsal of the left foot, it is contended, in essence,
that the condition has caused the formation of bunions which are
severe in nature and, therefore, a compensable evaluation for
this disorder is warranted.

With respect to the veteran's service-connected psoriasis it is
argued, essentially, that the disorder has increased in severity
and, therefore, a compensable evaluation is warranted.

DECISION OF THE BOARD

The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the
evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file(s).
Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and
for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the
Board that VA regulations concerning a claimant's duty to appear
for VA examinations scheduled in conjunction with claims for
increased ratings, mandate a denial of all of the veteran's
claims.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  The Board in September 1994 remanded the case in order to
afford the veteran special examinations and to develop the
evidentiary record pertinent to the veteran's claims for
increased ratings.

2.  The evidentiary record reflects that the veteran was
scheduled for VA examinations in November 1994 and that he failed
to report.

3.  The veteran has provided no reasonable excuse or explanation
for his failure to report for the scheduled examinations, and no
good cause has been shown.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Increased ratings for degenerative changes of the first
metatarsal of the right foot, first metatarsal of the left foot,
and psoriasis are not warranted.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991);
38 C.F.R. §§  3.326, 3.655(a)(b) (1994).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

Once a veteran has submitted a well-grounded claim, the VA is
required to assist him in the development of the facts pertinent
to the claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).

The records when the case was initially before the Board in
September 1994 did present the possibility of valid increased
rating claims.  However, because the records were insufficient,
the veteran's case was remanded to the RO.  The purpose of the
remand was to obtain additional treatment records that were
missing, and to conduct special examinations to assess the extent
of any existing neurological pathology and the impact of the
veteran's service-connected disabilities on his ability to work.

The evidence reflects that in accordance with the Board's remand,
the RO scheduled the veteran for various special examinations to
be conducted in November 1994.  However, it appears that he
failed to report for the scheduled examinations, even though he
was required to do so under 38 C.F.R. § 3.326 (1994).  That
regulation provides that individuals for whom examinations have
been authorized and scheduled "are required to report for such
examinations".  38 C.F.R. § 3.326 (1994).  The regulations
further provide that, when entitlement or continued entitlement
to a benefit cannot be established or confirmed without a current
VA examination or re-examination and a claimant, without good
cause, fails to report, action shall be taken in accordance with
paragraph (b).  38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a) (1994).  The veteran has
provided no reasonable excuse or explanation for his failure to
report for the examinations, and no "good cause" is apparent from
the records on file.  In Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 480 (1992)
the veteran failed to report for scheduled examinations.  In that
case, the United States Court of Veteran's Appeals reiterated
that the duty to assist is not always a one-way street, or a
blind alley; and that the veteran must be prepared to cooperate
with the VA's efforts to provide an adequate medical examination
and by submitting all the medical evidence supporting his claim.

Inasmuch as the veteran did not report for the scheduled
examinations and did not provide good cause for his failure to
appear, section 3.655(b) controls the instant case.  "When a
claimant  fails to report for an examination scheduled in
conjunction with ... [a] claim for increase, the claim shall be
denied".  38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) (1994).

Therefore, in light of the aforementioned law and regulations,
the veteran's claims for an increased rating for the various
disabilities are denied.

ORDER

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for degenerative changes
first metatarsal, right foot, status post osteotomy, is denied.

Entitlement to increased (compensable) evaluation for
degenerative changes to the first metatarsal left foot is denied.

Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
psoriasis is denied.

          JOAQUIN AGUAYO-PERELES
          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.

NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS:  Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West
1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less
than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is
appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within
120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision,
provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which
was before the Board was filed with the agency of original
jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988.  Veterans' Judicial
Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988).  The date which
appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of
mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is
your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals.