BVA9503464 
DOCKET NO.  93-13 191     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Baltimore,
Maryland

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for heart disease.

2.  Entitlement to an increased rating for arthritis of the
spine, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:  Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

B. Anderson, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The appellant had active duty from June 1939 to January 1949 and
from June 1949 to August 1952.  He was a prisoner of war of the
Japanese government.

In June 1993 the Baltimore, Maryland, regional office (RO)
requested examination be scheduled for claims for service
connection for irritable bowel syndrome and post-traumatic
arthritis of the knees.  Additionally, the Board notes that the
veteran was accorded a VA psychiatric examination in September
1992 but that the results of this examination have not yet been
considered as a possible basis for an increase in the disability
rating for the veteran's service-connected anxiety disorder,
currently rated as 10 percent disabling.  These matters are
referred to the RO for appropriate action.

REMAND

This appeal arises from a June 1991 rating decision of the RO.
In that decision, service connection was denied for heart disease
and a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for arthritis of
the spine was denied.

The statement of the case contains no laws or regulations
pertaining to the increased rating claim.  The March 1993
supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) does not contain the
criteria needed for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for
arthritis of the spine.  Neither the report of examination of the
appellant by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in June 1993
nor the March 1994 statement and medical opinion of S. Gottlieb,
M.D., has been covered by any SSOC.  In a statement dated in
December 1993, the appellant contended that two private
physicians, Dr. Garner Smith in 1984 and Dr. Calvin Jones in
1992, informed him that weakness in his aortic wall was caused by
malnutrition in service.

In a letter dated in March 1994, Sheldon H. Gottlieb, M.D., made
the following statement:

"Based on his history of incarceration, history
of Beriberi, and his current diffuse vascular
disease, it is my opinion that there is a high
probability that his wartime experiences may
have significantly affected the course of his
diffuse vascular disease, especially with
regard to the tendency to develop aneurysmal
dilatations of his arteries including an
abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in 1984 and
bilateral popliteal aneurysms repaired in
1992."

Dr. Gottlieb indicated that he would provide more documentation
or information upon request.

To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in
developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full
compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should attempt to obtain from
Dr. Garner Smith and from Dr. Calvin Jones
opinions concerning the relationship, if
any, between the veteran's military
experiences, particularly the hardships he
endured as a prisoner of war and while with
the Philippine guerrillas from June 1942 to
February 1945, and any cardiovascular
disorder from which the veteran may suffer.

2.  The records in this case should be
referred to a specialist in cardiovascular
medicine.  The specialist should be
requested to review the records, including
the opinion provided by Dr. Gottlieb, and
offer an opinion as to the relationship, if
any, between the veteran's military
experiences and any cardiovascular disorder
documented in the records.  The rationale
for the opinion should be provided.

3.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should again review the record, to
include the additional evidence received
after the latest SSOC.  If any benefit
sought on appeal remains denied, the
appellant and representative should be
furnished a SSOC, to include citation of
criteria pertaining to increased evaluation
of arthritis of the spine, and given the
applicable opportunity to reply.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome
of this case.  The appellant need take no action until so
notified.

          GARY L. GICK
          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 deter-
mination.  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 action has been taken in
accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).