BVA9508238 
DOCKET NO.  93-13 266     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manila,
Philippines

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for pulmonary tuberculosis.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a urinary tract
infection.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for pulpitis.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C. M. Flatley, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from May 1946 to April 1949.

In a statement received in September 1992 and at his personal
hearing in October 1992 (Transcript at 3-4.), the veteran raised
the issue of entitlement to service connection for an eye
disorder; in a June 1992 statement, he referred to a kidney
disorder; and his application for compensation also included
information that he was unable to work due to disabilities.
These matters, which are not inextricably intertwined with the
issues on appeal, are referred to the regional office (RO) for
any appropriate clarification and development.

REMAND

Of record is an interpretation by a VA radiologist, dated in
August 1991, of an April 1949 X-ray study of the chest, which
reflects an impression of suspicious densities in the left apex
and left medial basal pneumonitis.  Interpretation of a July 1987
X-ray study of the chest led to a radiologic impression of
bilateral medial basal pneumonitis.  It was noted that pulmonary
infiltrations, etiology undetermined, "were progressive" from
April 1949 to July 1987.  The radiologist commented that due to
the extended interval between the two radiographic examinations,
present stability could not be determined.  Despite the
radiologist's impressions, the veteran was not afforded a
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examination in order to
obtain an opinion regarding whether an current pulmonary disorder
is etiologically related to the service radiographic findings.

In his 1991 application, the veteran also referred to being
treated at the "DRZM Hospital" within one year of service
discharge.  However, the file does not show that those records
have been procured.  In light of the foregoing, the case is
REMANDED to the RO for the following:

1.  The RO should obtain all available
records from DRZM Hospital.  The veteran
should sign an authorization for release of
information.

2.  The veteran should be afforded a VA
pulmonary examination in order to identify
the current disorder as well its etiology.
The claims folder must be made available to
the examiner for review before the
examination.  The examiner should provide
an opinion as to whether any current
disability found is etiologically related
to the radiographic findings shown during
service on the April 1949 X-ray.

3.  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 his
representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond thereto.

The issues of entitlement to service connection for a urinary
tract infection and pulpitis are deferred pending the above
development.  No action is required of the veteran until he is so
informed.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate
decision warranted in this case, pending completion of the
requested development.

          M. SABULSKY
          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).