BVA9506520 
DOCKET NO.  93-14 750     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss
disability.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus.

4.  Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of the left
shoulder.

5.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of a wound of the left shoulder, Muscle Group IV.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and spouse

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C. M. Flatley, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from July 1942 to October 1945.

The issue of entitlement to an increased evaluation for a left
shoulder wound is certified for appeal.  There is no indication
that the regional office considered the veteran's length of
inservice treatment.  There is no indication that the regional
office considered the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.56 (1994).  In
addition, a December 1992 VA examination disclosed limitation of
motion.  No reference to the actual physical findings was noted
by the hearing officer, even though the only diagnosis was
residuals, shell fragment wound left shoulder.  The reason for
rejecting the findings was not reported.

The issue of entitlement to service connection for arthritis of
the left shoulder is certified for appeal.  An orthopedic
examiner noted that there was pain due to arthritis.  X-ray
studies were interpreted as normal for the veteran's age.

The interpretation by the radiologist does not aid in determining
whether the veteran has arthritis of the left shoulder.  It
appears that the regional office determined that the veteran did
not have arthritis.  Since normal for age can mean anything, the
opinion by the regional office is not supported.

The issue of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss
disability has been certified for appeal.  There is no indication
that the regional office considered the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 1154 (West 1991).  Particularly since the veteran was wounded,
and according to the limited documents, he underwent a
myringotomy while treated for the shoulder wound.

To ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case
is REMANDED to the regional office (RO) for the following
development:

1.  The regional office must consider the
provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.56 (1994) in
the evaluation of the residuals of the
shell fragment wound.  The regional office
must address the extent of the inservice
treatment and the limitation of motion
identified on the most recent VA
examination.  If the limitation of motion,
identified by the examiner as due to the
wound is not due to the wound, the RO must
support that determination with evidence.

2.  The veteran should be afforded a VA
orthopedic examination to determine whether
the veteran has arthritis of the left
shoulder.  The examination must determine
the presence or absence of arthritis in the
shoulder.

3.  The regional office must readjudicate
the issue of entitlement to service
connection for hearing loss disability.
The RO must consider the provisions of 38
U.S.C.A. § 1154 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

4.  The veteran is to be informed that he
has a duty to submit evidence of a well
grounded claim for service connection for
hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and left
shoulder arthritis.  The best evidence
would be competent evidence of the claimed
disabilities during service or within 1
year of separation from service or
attributable to service.

5.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should again review the record.  If
any benefit sought on appeal, for which a
notice of disagreement has been filed,
remains denied, the appellant and
representative, if any, should be furnished
a supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond thereto.

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 unless otherwise
notified.

          H. N. SCHWARTZ
          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).