BVA9501986 DOCKET NO. 93-10 132 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae. 2. Entitlement to service connection for gastritis. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a chronic disorder manifested by chest pain. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability. 5. Entitlement to service connection for costochondritis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Alabama Department of Veterans Affairs ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Theresa M. Catino, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active military duty from August 1986 to August 1989 and from December 1990 to September 1991. In VA Form 21-526, Veteran's Application for Compensation or Pension, which was received at the regional office (RO) in November 1991, the veteran raised the issue of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing disability. The RO denied the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss in a January 1992 rating decision and notified the veteran of this denial in the same month. The notice of disagreement, which was received at the RO in October 1992, did not include any reference to the RO's denial of this particular disorder. Although the matter of a hearing loss was subsequently referred to in the statement of the case and by the veteran's representative, the absence of a timely notice of disagreement precludes the exercise of jurisdiction by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) over this issue. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(a) (West 1991). In the substantive appeal, which was received at the RO in February 1993, the veteran appeared to raise the issue of entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for his service-connected right inguinal hernia repair. This claim is not inextricably intertwined with the current appeal and is referred to the RO for appropriate action. REMAND According to the service medical records, the veteran had several episodes of treatment for pseudofolliculitis during service as well as other relevant treatment. In view of these findings, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) believes that the veteran should be accorded Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical evaluation to determine whether or not he presently has any of the disabilities on appeal. In addition, the Board notes that the claims folder does not contain any records of post-service medical treatment for these disabilities. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that there is a continuing obligation on the VA to assist the veteran in developing the facts of his claim throughout the entire administrative adjudication. This obligation includes the duty to obtain records regarding the veteran's medical history. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 363, 373 (1992). The RO should obtain any available records of post-service outpatient or inpatient treatment that the veteran may have received for any of the disabilities at issue. VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1991). This duty to assist includes the duty to develop facts when the record before the Board is clearly inadequate. EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 324 (1991); Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990). The development of facts includes a "thorough and contemporaneous medical examination, one which takes into account the records of prior medical treatment, so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will be a fully informed one." Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The veteran should be contacted and requested to furnish a complete list of all medical personnel and facilities from which he has received treatment for any of the disabilities at issue since his separation from service. After obtaining the appropriate releases from the veteran where necessary, the health care providers should be contacted and requested to provide copes of all treatment records in their possession pertaining to the veteran. Any available records should be associated with the claims folder. 2. Thereafter, the veteran should be accorded a VA dermatology examination to determine the nature, extent, and etiology of any pseudofolliculitis barbae he may have. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the diagnostic procedures outlined in the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. 3. Thereafter, the veteran should also be accorded appropriate VA medical examination in connection with the remaining issues on appeal. The examination should be conducted in accordance with the diagnostic procedures outlined in the VA Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation Examinations. 4. Following the above development, the RO should readjudicate the issues on appeal. If the decision remains unfavorable, the veteran and his representative 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 obtain clarifying evidence. 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).