BVA9505219 
DOCKET NO.  91-24 182     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUE

1.  Entitlement to service connection for a bladder disability
secondary to exposure to Agent Orange.

2.  Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for hemorrhoids.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Patrick J. Costello, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from March 1971 to
December 1973.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter the Board) on appeal from a February 1991 rating
decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional
Office (RO), in Waco, Texas, that denied the veteran's claim for
service connection for a bladder condition secondary to exposure
to Agent Orange.

REMAND

The appellant contends that the RO erred when it denied his claim
for service connection for a bladder condition, including
"carcinoma of the bladder", cystitis, and dysplasia.
Specifically, he asserts that his bladder conditions are the
result of exposure to Agent Orange.

In January 1994, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs announced
through the Federal Register those disabilities that would, and
would not, be considered the diseases and disabilities presumably
caused by exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam.  As a result of
this announcement, in February 1994, the Veterans Benefits
Administration published VA Circular 21-94-1, Processing of
Claims Based on Exposure to Herbicide Agents, which provides
guidance to the regional offices for the processing of those
claims related to Agent Orange.

In conjunction with this claim, a brief review of the record to
date indicates that possibly this claim is not well-grounded.  In
Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990), the Court of Veterans
Appeals (Court) has stated that a well-grounded claim is one that
is plausible and meritorious.  This means that the evidence
presented should reveal that there was an injury or disease while
in service and that there is currently a disability involving
that same injury or disease, i.e., that there is some medical
link between the current disability and the injury or disease in
service.  If this is not present, then the RO, and, if appealed,
the Board, has a duty to find that the claim is not well-grounded
and dismiss it.

When a claim is found to be not well-grounded and is dismissed,
the veteran is, in effect, put on notice that the claim is
defective.  However, he is not penalized in that no denial of his
claim is made by the Board.  The veteran may submit additional
evidence that would make his claim plausible and, because there
is no final denial by the Board on record, he is not required to
reopen the claim.  The Court is concerned that VA not expend time
and money in processing implausible claims.  See Grivois v.
Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994).  Thus, during the remand process,
the RO should also determine whether the veteran has submitted a
well-grounded claim concerning the issue of service connection
for a bladder condition secondary to exposure to Agent Orange.

The Board further notes that in February 1991, the RO granted
service connection for hemorrhoids.  A noncompensable evaluation
was awarded.  38 C.F.R. Part 4, Diagnostic Code 7336 (1991).
Initially, the veteran did not appeal that rating decision, and
his claim was processed solely on the question of whether service
connection for a bladder condition secondary to Agent Orange was
warranted.  Since that decision, and subsequent to our Remand in
February 1993, the RO issued a decision in March 1994.  VA Form
21-6796, Rating Decision, March 16, 1994.  That rating decision
denied a compensable evaluation for the veteran's hemorrhoids.
Subsequently, the veteran appealed that decision and the RO
issued a Statement of the Case.

Per the claims file before us, the veteran did not submit a VA
Form 1-9, Appeal to Board of Veterans Appeals.  However, the
veteran's accredited representative did submit an informal
presentation in February 1995 which addressed both the issue of
service connection for a bladder condition secondary to Agent
Orange exposure and a compensable evaluation for hemorrhoids.
With respect to the latter claim, the representative noted that a
fissure was shown on examination in March 1994 which he believes
entitles the veteran to a higher disability rating for
hemorrhoids.  The Board finds that this statement meets the
requirements of a VA Form 1-9, and that the veteran's appeal for
a compensable rating for hemorrhoids has been perfected to the
Board.

However, in finding that this issue has been perfected, we also
note that the evidence of record is not sufficient enough for the
Board to make a determination concerning the merits of the
veteran's claim.  That is, while the statement of the case
referenced various medical records indicating that the veteran
was examined for, and possibly operated on, his hemorrhoids,
those records are not included in the claims file.  Therefore,
before a final determination may be made on this issue, the RO
must obtain those records and include them in the claims folder.

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
actions:

1.  The RO should ask the veteran for the
names and addresses of all physicians who
have treated him for his hemorrhoids, and
the RO should obtain and associate with the
claims folder all treatment records of the
veteran from such health care providers.
Of interest are any progress notes, special
studies, x-ray films, laboratory tests, and
technicians' reports of the veteran's
treatment and diagnoses.  Also of interest
are the treatment records, referenced by
the RO in its statement of the case, from
the Dallas VA Medical Center.

2.  The RO, in accordance with VA Circular
21-94-1, Processing of Claims Based on
Exposure to Herbicide Agent, should
readjudicate the appellant's claim that a
bladder disability developed as a result of
Agent Orange exposure.  If the decision
remains unfavorable, he and his
representative should be given a
supplemental statement of the case and
allowed sufficient time for a response.
Thereafter, the claim should be returned to
the Board for further consideration.

Following completion of the requested development, the veteran's
claim to an increased disability rating for hemorrhoids should be
readjudicated, with consideration of the contentions of the
accredited representative in his informal arguments in February
1995.  If the decision remains unfavorable, he and his
representative should be given a supplemental statement of the
case and allowed sufficient time for a response.  Thereafter, the
claim should be returned to the Board for further consideration.

No action is required of the veteran until he is contacted by the
regional office.  The purpose of this REMAND is to ensure due
process and to obtain additional clarifying medical evidence.

          BETTINA S. CALLAWAY
          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).