BVA9504545 
DOCKET NO.  93-14 580     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

S. L. Kennedy, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran has verified active duty in the Armed Forces from
January 1951 to January 1954 with additional periods of verified
active duty between April 1954 and January 1972.  This appeal
arises from a June 1992 rating decision of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), St. Louis, Missouri, Regional Office (RO).
In that decision, the RO denied the veteran's claim of
entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and
hypertension.

As noted above, the veteran has verified active duty in the
United States Army from January 1951 to January 1954.  He has
also indicated that his additional service was in the U. S. Army
Reserves and that he retired from the Reserves in 1976.  However,
the record on appeal contains information verifying additional
continuous active duty from April 1954 to January 1972 with other
unspecified service in the U.S. Army Reserves.  The record on
appeal contains a November 1992 VA Form 21-3101 (Request for
Information) forwarded by the RO to the service department
requesting clarification of the veteran's active duty, including
an inquiry regarding whether or not the veteran's active duty
from April 1954 to June 1972 was with the Reserves only.  The
record on appeal includes a May 1993 letter from the U.S. Army
Reserve Personnel Center pertaining to the RO's November 1992
inquiry which indicates that another request was currently being
processed.  The record indicates that the service department had
not yet completed its action on the last RO request for service
verification, and it therefore, appears that the case is
prematurely before the Board.

The veteran contends that both a hearing loss and hypertension
were incurred during his active military service between 1951 and
1953, and that he continued to be treated for these disorders by
both U.S. Army physicians and by his family practitioner, Dr.
Thomas Waltrip of Sikeston, Missouri.  The VA has a duty to
assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his
claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993).  The United States Court
of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that fulfillment of the VA's
duty to assist the veteran includes the procurement and
consideration of any relevant medical records.  Ferraro v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 326, 334 (1991).  With the veteran's
assistance, the RO should procure copies of any pertinent medical
records referenced herein.

In view of the foregoing, and in order to fully and fairly
adjudicate the veteran's claim, the case is REMANDED to the RO
for the following action:

1.  The RO should request the veteran to
identify the names and addresses of any
medical care providers, VA and otherwise,
who treated him for hearing loss and/or
hypertension since 1953.  After securing
any necessary release, the RO should obtain
legible copies of all pertinent medical
records, to include complete records from
Dr. Thomas Waltrip of Sikeston, Missouri.
All records obtained should be added to the
claims file.

2.  The RO should direct a follow-up
inquiry to the Department of the Army, U.
S. Army Reserve Personnel Center, to
determine the status of its November 1992
Request for Information relating to
verification of the veteran's military
service, and specifically all periods of
active duty with the regular Army and
periods of active duty for training with
the Army Reserves.  If appropriate, an
additional request for all related service
medical records, not currently of record,
should be made, and those records should be
associated with the claims file.

3.  Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate
the veteran's claim.  If the determination
remains adverse to the veteran, he should
be provided a supplemental statement of the
case which includes a summary of additional
evidence and the reasons for the decision.
The veteran and his representative should
be afforded the applicable time to respond.

The case should then be returned to the Board for further
appellate review.  The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain
additional evidence and ensure that the veteran is afforded all
due process of law.  The Board intimates no opinion, either
factual or legal, as to the ultimate conclusion warranted in this
case.

          CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM
          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 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).