BVA9502802 DOCKET NO. 91-52 292 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUES Entitlement to service connection for head tumor residuals, skin disabilities, and visual impairment, also claimed as residuals of Agent Orange exposure. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The appellant, and the appellant's spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. H. Mathis, Counsel REMAND The veteran had active service from July 1966 to July 1969, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from rating decisions by the Nashville, Tennessee, Regional Office, of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In January 1993, the Board remanded the case to the RO pending the promulgation of additional regulations governing benefits for residuals of herbicide exposure. The Board did not consider the merits of the veteran's appeal in 1989 regarding the Agent Orange claim because in May 1989 the United States District Court, Northern District of California, had voided all benefit denials under existing herbicide exposure regulations. New regulations have since been promulgated. Based on review of the VA outpatient treatment reports and the veteran's testimony during the hearing at the RO in July 1991, the veteran has complained of having had a knot on the back of his head following which he developed vertigo, diplopia and headaches. He contends that these symptoms and other skin disabilities were caused by his exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Board notes that the veteran has not had a VA compensation examination regarding his claims. It is the judgment of the Board that findings on VA examinations would be helpful prior to a decision on the merits of the claims. Also, a review of the record reflects that the service medical records may be incomplete. The purpose of the action to obtain the veteran's complete medical records is to ensure that the entire record is available for review by VA clinical specialists. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following actions: 1. The RO should request the service department to complete a special search for any additional service medical records which may be available for association with the primary claims folder. 2. The RO should contact the veteran and request that he identify the names, addresses, and approximate dates of treatment for all VA and non-VA health care providers who have treated him for head tumor, skin disability, or visual impairment since service. With any necessary authorization from the veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain copies of pertinent treatment records identified by the veteran, which have not been previously secured, and associate them with the claims folder. 3. Then, the RO should arrange for a VA examination of the veteran based on the claim that he has residuals of Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. The veteran should also be examined by a board certified neurologist, dermatologist, and ophthalmologist, if available, to determine the nature and extent of any current head tumor residuals, skin disability, and visual impairment, respectively. All indicated studies should be performed. The examiners should be requested to examine the veteran, review the record, and provide an opinion, with complete rationale, as to the etiology of any head tumor residuals, skin disability, or visual impairment found to be present, based on their area of expertise, to include an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any such impairment is etiologically related to the veteran's exposure to Agent Orange during service in Vietnam. It is imperative that a copy of this Remand and the veteran's claims file be made available to the examiners prior to the examinations. 4. Following completion of the foregoing, the RO must review the claims folder and ensure that all of the foregoing development actions have been conducted and completed in full. If any development is incomplete, including if the requested examinations do not include all test reports, special studies or opinions requested, appropriate corrective action is to be implemented. 5. Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate the issues currently certified on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the appellant's satisfaction or if a timely Notice of Disagreement is received with respect to any other matter, a Supplemental Statement of the Case addressing all issues in appellate status should be prepared and furnished to the appellant and his representative. They should be provided an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, in accordance with proper appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise in order. All issues properly in appellate status should be returned to the Board at the same time. In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any final outcome warranted. The appellant need take no action until otherwise notified. _____________________________ F. JUDGE FLOWERS Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 State. 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).