BVA9508222 
DOCKET NO.  93-16 511     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville,
Tennessee

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), currently evaluated as 10 percent
disabling.

2.  Whether there is new and material evidence to reopen a claim
for service connection for a skin disorder of the feet.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and Bobby Brown

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

R. T. Jones, Counsel
INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from January 1967 to March
1970.

This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal of a rating decisions of the Nashville, Tennessee,
Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
In a January 1992 decision, service connection for PTSD was
granted and evaluated as 10 percent disabling.  In June 1992, the
RO denied an application to reopen a claim for service connection
for a skin disorder of the feet.

REMAND

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for service-
connected PTSD is well grounded, meaning not inherently
implausible, and the file indicates there is a further VA duty to
assist him in developing the facts pertinent to that claim.
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159
(1994); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990); Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2
Vet.App. 363 (1992).

The veteran contends, in part, that his service-connected PTSD
warrants an evaluation in excess of the current 10 percent
rating.  In denying this claim the RO and Hearing officer appear
to have differentiated symptoms due to the veteran's post-service
incarceration and his service in Vietnam.  The veteran apparently
has been imprisoned twice since service; once for manslaughter
and once for shooting at a police officer (the latter conviction
was dismissed after a successful suppression of evidence motion).
The veteran's last VA compensation examination was in October
1992, when the VA examiner stated the veteran should have
psychological testing with an emphasis on PTSD and personality;
this testing should be performed.  Also, since that time a report
of a non-VA July 1991 psychological testing has been received,
but not reviewed by a VA examiner.

To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the veteran in
developing the facts pertinent to his claim, the case is REMANDED
to the RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should secure all the veteran's
medical treatment records from the since
1992, from the VA Medical Center in
Nashville.  The RO should obtain from the
veteran the names and addresses of all
medical care providers who have treated the
veteran for psychiatric symptoms since
service.  The RO should then directly
contact the medical providers and obtain
copies of all records not already on file,
following the procedures of 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.159.  This includes, but is not limited
to, medical records from the New York state
correctional facility in Auburn, N.Y., in
the 1980's.

2.  The veteran should be scheduled for an
examination for VA by a psychiatrist to
determine the current severity of his
service-connected PTSD.  Psychological
testing should be undertaken.  The claims
folder and all current treatment records
must be made available to the examiner for
review before the examination so a proper
assessment of the current PTSD can be made.
The examiner should complete a multiaxial
diagnosis, and offer an opinion as to the
severity of the impairment that is due to
his PTSD due to his experiences in Vietnam
verses any PTSD symptoms due to his
incarcerations.  If these are determined to
be separate and distinct disease entities,
then only a score referable to PTSD should
be entered on the Global Assessment of
Functioning Scale on Axis V.

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 veteran need take no action until otherwise
notified.  The issue of whether there is new and material
evidence to reopen a claim for service connection for a skin of
the feet is deferred pending completion of the above actions.

          E. M. KRENZER
          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).