BVA9502333 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 360     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUE

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim for service connection for hearing loss.

2.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim for service connection for tinnitus.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and friend

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Robert E. P. Jones, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from July 1943 to November
1945.  This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from a January 1992 rating decision by the
Jackson, Mississippi, Regional Office (RO).  The January 1992
rating decision denied the veteran's request to reopen claims of
entitlement to service connection for hearing loss and for
tinnitus.

The veteran's service representative has raised the issue of
service connection for organic brain syndrome.  This issue has
not been developed or certified for appellate review.  This issue
is hereby referred to the RO for appropriate action.

The veteran and his representative have asserted, in substance,
that a May 1987 rating decision which denied the veteran's claims
for service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus was clearly
and unmistakably erroneous.  This matter has not yet been
considered by the RO.  A favorable decision on the issue of clear
and unmistakable error in the May 1987 rating decision would
render the issues currently certified on appeal moot.  These
issues are therefore "inextricably intertwined," and the RO must
adjudicate the issues of clear and unmistakable error prior to
the Board's consideration of the issues certified on appeal.  See
Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180 (1991).

In light of the foregoing, this case is hereby REMANDED to the
agency of original jurisdiction for the following actions:

1.  The RO should contact the Service
Department and request all additional
service medical records which may be
available.  All documents obtained should
be associated with the veteran's claims
file.

2.  The RO should adjudicate the claims of
clear and unmistakable error in the May
1987 denial of service connection for
hearing loss and tinnitus.

3.  The veteran and his representative
should be informed of the determination by
letter that includes notification of
appellate rights.  If a notice of
disagreement is received, a supplemental
statement of the case should be issued
which addresses this new issues.  The
veteran and his representative should be
informed that a substantive appeal must be
filed with regard to the new issues of
clear and unmistakable error and be
afforded the applicable period of time in
which to respond.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further
consideration, if in order.  No action is required by the
appellant until he receives further notice.  The purpose of this
REMAND is to afford the veteran due process.

          WAYNE M. BRAEUER
          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).