BVA9504382 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 989     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson,
Mississippi

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based on
individual unemployability.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

S. D. Regan, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active service from June 1951 to November 1952.
This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter "the Board") on appeal from a January 1993 rating
decision of the Jackson, Mississippi Regional Office (hereinafter
"the RO") which, in pertinent part, denied the veteran's claim
for entitlement to a total rating for compensation purposes based
on individual unemployability.  The veteran has been represented
throughout this appeal by AMVETS.

The veteran asserts on appeal that the RO erred in denying a
total rating for compensation purposes based on individual
unemployability.  In reviewing the record, it is observed that
the accredited representative's informal hearing presentation
advances a claim for service connection for hypertension on
either a direct basis or as secondary to the veteran's service-
connected pulmonary disorder.  This issue has neither been
developed nor certified for our review on appeal, and the
representative requests this case be remanded in order that this
issue be resolved.  Given that the veteran's entitlement to a
total rating for compensation purposes based on individual
unemployability is dependent upon an accurate assessment of his
service-connected disabilities, the Board finds that resolution
of the certified issue without prior consideration of the
veteran's entitlement to service connection for hypertension
would be contrary to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals
(hereinafter "the Court") holding in Harris v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 180 (1991) directing the avoidance of piecemeal review
of the veteran's claims.  The two matters are inextricably
intertwined.  Therefore, further development of the record is
necessary prior to the Board's resolution of the issue on appeal.

In light of the VA's duty to assist the veteran in the proper
development of his claim as mandated by the provisions of
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 1991) and as interpreted by the
United States Court of Veterans Appeals (hereinafter "the
Court") in Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92-93 (1990),
this case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should formally adjudicate the
veteran's entitlement to service connection
for hypertension on a direct basis or as
secondary to his service-connected
pulmonary disorder.

When the requested action has been completed, and if his claim
continues to be denied, the veteran should be afforded a
reasonable period of time in which to respond to a supplemental
statement of the case with respect to all issues for which a
timely notice of disagreement has been submitted.  Thereafter,
subject to current appellate procedures, the case should be
returned to the Board for further appellate consideration if
appropriate.  The veteran need not take any action unless he is
further informed.  The purpose of this REMAND is to allow for
further development of the record.  No inference should be drawn
from it regarding the final disposition of the veteran's claim.

          E. W. SEERY
          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).