BVA9501957 
DOCKET NO.  93-10 217     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

THE ISSUES

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a urinary
disorder, including prostatitis.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a nervous condition
secondary to prostatitis.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Theresa M. Catino, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had qualifying active service from July 1971 to July
1975. He also had service between January 1978 to May 1983.  He
was dishonorably discharged from the latter period of military
service.

REMAND

The veteran's original claim of entitlement to service connection
for a urinary disorder was received at the regional office (RO)
in October 1989.  The RO denied the claim of entitlement to
service connection for a urinary condition in July 1990.  The
veteran was notified of this rating decision in the same month.
The notice of disagreement was received at the RO in August 1990,
and he was sent a statement of the case by the RO later that
month.  Subsequently, the RO determined that a valid substantive
appeal was not timely submitted and, therefore, did not process
the veteran's claim any further.  The RO treated receipt of
additional service medical records and VA Form 21-526, Veteran's
Application for Compensation or Pension, in November 1991 as the
veteran's application to reopen a previously denied claim of
entitlement to service connection for prostatitis.

Significantly, however, a review of the claims folder indicates
that on May 6, 1991, the RO received a letter from the veteran,
dated May 2, 1991, in which he referred to his appeal of his
"claim for disability for a urinary condition" and discussed his
symptomatology at some length.  This letter could be considered a
substantive appeal.  The question of whether this letter can be
considered a substantive appeal is inextricably intertwined with
the certified issue.

The Board concludes that further assistance to the veteran is
required.  Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following:

1.  The veteran should be accorded a VA
genitourinary examination to determine the
nature, extent, and etiology of any urinary
tract disorder, including prostatitis, that
he may have.  The report of examination
should include a detailed account of all
manifestations of any such disorders found
to be present.  All necessary tests should
be conducted, and the examiner should
review the results of any testing prior to
completion of the report.  The examination
should be conducted in accordance with the
diagnostic procedures outlined in the VA
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations.  If the examiner finds any
urinary tract disorder, including
prostatitis, to be present, he should
express an opinion as to the relationship
of any such  disorder to the diagnoses of,
and treatment for, prostatitis during
service.  The claims folder and a copy of
this remand must be made available to and
reviewed by the examiner prior to the
examination.

2.  Thereafter, the RO should determine
whether the letter submitted by the veteran
in May 1991 was a valid substantive appeal.
After undertaking any further development
deemed appropriate, the RO should
readjudicate the issues on appeal.  The RO
should inform the veteran of all decisions
reached.

Following completion of these actions, and, if the decision
remains unfavorable, the veteran should be provided with a
supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable
period of time in which to respond.  Thereafter, the case, in
accordance with the current appellate procedures, should be
returned to the Board for completion of appellate review.  The
purpose of this REMAND is to insure due process.  No action is
required of the veteran until further notice is issued.

          JOHN E. ORMOND
          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).