BVA9503458 
DOCKET NO.  93-06 976     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Hartford,
Connecticut

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
tinnitus.

2.  Whether there was clear and unmistakable error in the prior
rating decision that reduced the evaluation for the veteran's
service-connected defective hearing from 40 percent to 20 percent
effective March 19, 1960.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

John R. Pagano, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active military service from February 1945 to
July 1946.

The veteran has submitted well-grounded claims; that is, they are
plausible and capable of substantiation.  As such, the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a duty to assist him in their
development.  See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).  This duty
has not yet been fully met, and this case, therefore, is not
ready for appellate disposition for the reasons that follow.

The duty to assist includes aiding a claimant in the development
of facts pertinent to his claim.  This includes conducting a
thorough medical examination when necessary.  Remand in such
cases is mandatory rather than permissive.  See Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92 (1990).  In the instant case, the
veteran claims that he was exposed to acoustic trauma during
military service.  This history was reiterated by his private
audiologist in a September 1992 audiological report.  However,
the audiologist did not indicate whether, in his opinion,
tinnitus was attributable to such a history.  Similarly, the
remainder of the appellate record is devoid of a medical opinion
regarding the etiology of the veteran's tinnitus.  The Board of
Veterans' Appeals (Board) is not permitted to impose its own
unsubstantiated medical conclusions in such cases.  See ZN v.
Brown, 6 Vet.App. 183, 193 (1994).  As such, the Board finds that
further examination by a specialist is necessary prior to further
appellate consideration to clarify the matter of medical
causation vis-a-vis the veteran's tinnitus.  See Hyder v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221, 224 (1991).  The Board would be remiss
to render a decision in this case based upon evidence that
clearly is inadequate for rating purposes.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1,
4.2 (1994).

In view of the foregoing, action on the instant issues is
deferred, and this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following:

1.  The veteran should be given the
opportunity to undergo a special VA
audiological examination for the

purpose of determining the etiology of his
tinnitus.  The claims folder must be
available to, and be reviewed by, the
examining physician prior thereto.  All
indicated tests and studies must be
accomplished.  The examiner should indicate
the degree of probability that tinnitus
arose as a result of acoustic trauma
sustained by the veteran during military
service.  The examiner should ensure that
all findings are consistent with each other
and with the history of the disability at
issue.  38 C.F.R. § 4.41 (1994); Schafrath
v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 595-596
(1991).  In addition, all clinical findings
should be reported in detail, and complete
rationale should be given for all opinions
and conclusions expressed.

2.  The RO should review the examination
report to ensure that it is in compliance
with this REMAND.  If it is not, it should
be returned for corrective action.

3.  The RO should again review the claim.
If a compensable evaluation for tinnitus is
not granted, both the veteran and his
representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case.  They
should also be given the requisite time
period in which to respond.

Regardless of the RO's determination regarding tinnitus, the case
must be returned to the Board for further consideration of the
remaining issue on appeal.  The veteran need take no action until
so informed.  The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain clarifying
information, and no inference should be drawn regarding the final

disposition of the claims.

          WARREN W. RICE, JR.
          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) (1994).