BVA9508341 DOCKET NO. 93-14 295 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia THE ISSUE Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss, anxiety, foot, and stomach disorders. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Darryl A. Joe, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from June 1953 to May 1955. By a rating decision in July 1990, the Roanoke, Virginia Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied the veteran's claim for service connection for hearing loss, a psychiatric disorder, and disabilities of the stomach and feet. A notice of this action, including an explanation of his procedural and appellate rights, was issued to the veteran the following month. An appeal was not filed within one year of the notification. Consequently, the July 1990 rating decision became final. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(c) (West 1991). The instant appeal came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from determinations of the RO in 1992 and 1993, which held that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the veteran's claims for service connection for the disabilities cited above. The Board acknowledges that in a statement of July 1992, the veteran requested that the VA reinstate his nonservice-connected pension. Review of the record shows that the veteran was granted VA pension benefits by a February 1991 rating decision, but his award was later terminated in April 1991, due to excessive income. In addition, the veteran appears to be raising a claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151, for disability resulting from right shoulder surgery in a VA facility in July or August 1992. These issues have not been developed for appellate review. Since neither the issue of whether the veteran's income is at a level which would permit payment of pension benefits nor that of benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is inextricably intertwined with the issues currently certified for appellate review, we will refer those matters to the RO for appropriate consideration. REMAND The Board has carefully reviewed the entire record in this case in order to ascertain whether additional evidence may be helpful to the veteran. In this regard, we note that research of the veteran's initial application for service connection, filed in January 1990, reveals that he included a listing of several physicians who reportedly treated him in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's. It does not appear that any attempts were made by the RO to confirm whether the veteran was in fact treated by these physicians and if records of such treatment exists. We also note that the available service medical records consist only of the reports of the veteran's pre-induction examination, dated in April 1953, and his separation examination, dated in April 1955. Responding to the RO's request for medical information related to the veteran's active service, the National Personnel Records Center indicated, in March and July 1990, that all medical records for the veteran, with the exception of the reports of his entrance and separation examinations, were destroyed in a fire at that facility. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has instructed that the duty to assist a veteran in developing facts pertinent to his claim is heightened in a case where service medical records are presumed destroyed and includes the obligation to search for alternate records. See Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 542, 548 (1992). Inasmuch as it appears that additional, pertinent medical evidence may exist, which is not currently of record, and there is no indication that VA has made any previous attempts to secure such information, additional development is required prior to the further appellate review. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: The RO should review the application for VA compensation benefits that was submitted by the veteran in January 1990. The RO should then attempt to obtain medical records related to the treatment the veteran allegedly received from the listed private physicians before, during, and after his active military service. To this end, the veteran should also be contacted and requested to provide the names and addresses of any medical facilities or physicians which furnished treatment to him before and after service for the disabilities at issue, that is, hearing loss, a psychiatric disorder, and disabilities of the feet and stomach. The RO should clearly document all attempts made to obtain any existing medical records, as well as the results of its efforts. All clinical records from the physicians, or their successors in practice, should be associated with the claims folder. When the above development has been completed, the RO should review the veteran's claim. If the issue on appeal remains denied, the veteran should be issued a supplemental statement of the case and afforded the requisite 60 days within which to respond. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(c) (1994). Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedure, the veteran's claim should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. No action is required of the veteran until he is notified. The purpose of the REMAND is to further develop the record, to the extent such development is possible. N. R. ROBIN 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).