BVA9508369 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 880     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for the residuals of a
shell fragment wound to the right upper extremity, currently
evaluated as 10 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple
Heart

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Joseph Horrigan, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from February 1964 to February
1966.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
from a May 1991 rating decision of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
RO.  The case is before the Board for appellate consideration at
this time.

It appears from the record that the veteran wishes to appeal the
issue of whether there was clear and unmistakable error in a
November 1987 rating decision denying service connection for
degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, which was denied
by rating action of November 1991.  The veteran has not received
a Statement of the Case in regard to this issue and the matter is
referred to the RO for all appropriate action.

The veteran has also been seeking service connection for a
respiratory disorder secondary to a shell fragment wound to the
right chest.  However, in a statement dated in April 1993, the
veteran's representative indicated that this claim was withdrawn.
Only, the issue of an increased evaluation for the residuals of a
shell fragment wound to the right upper extremity is before the
Board for appellate consideration at this time.

REMAND

It has been contended that the veteran has pain, weakness, and
loss of sensation in the right arm which are service-connected
residuals of a shell fragment wound to the right upper extremity.
The veteran was afforded a VA examination of this injury in March
1992, but no X-ray of the right upper extremity was performed at
that time and there was no detailed evaluation performed of the
veteran's neurological complaints in regard to his right arm.  In
addition, there was no detailed evaluation of the damage to the
muscles and tissue of the right upper arm.  Moreover, it does not
appear that the claims folder was available for review by the
examiners at the time of the March 1992 evaluation.  Finally, it
appears that additional, relevant, clinical records may be
available which are not currently in the claims folder.

In view of the foregoing, and given the duty to assist the
veteran in the development of his claim under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107
(West 1991), this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
development:

1.  The RO should take all appropriate
action to obtain copies of all clinical
records documenting the veteran's
treatment at the VA Medical Center in
Altoona, Pennsylvania, subsequent to
February 19, 1991.  All records received
should be associated with the claims
folder.

2.  Then, the veteran should be afforded
VA orthopedic and neurological
examinations of the residuals of his shell
fragment wounds to the right upper arm.
All necessary special studies, including
an X-ray of the right upper arm and
shoulder, as well as electromyographic and
nerve conduction velocity studies, should
be performed.  All pertinent clinical
findings should be reported in detail,
including bone deformities, if extant,
ranges of motion in the right shoulder and
elbow, and the nature and extent of any
neurological dysfunction in the right arm
attributable to the shell fragment wound.
The claims folder must be made available
to the examiners prior to the examinations
so that they may study the pertinent
clinical record in detail.

3.  Based on the development requested
herein above, the RO should review the
veteran's claim of an increased evaluation
for the residuals of a shell fragment
wound to the right upper arm, with
consideration given to all applicable
rating criteria including those of
38 C.F.R. §§ 4.46-4.56, 4.72, and 4.73.
If the benefit sought is not granted to
the veteran's satisfaction, he and his
representative should be provided with a
supplemental statement of the case,
containing a discussion of all the
pertinent evidence made a part of the
record since the issuance of the statement
of the case, as well as all pertinent laws
and regulations, and afforded a reasonable
opportunity to respond thereto.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further
consideration, if appropriate.  By this remand, the Board
intimates no opinion as to the outcome warranted in this case.
No action is required of the veteran until he is so informed by
the RO.

          BARBARA B. COPELAND
          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).