BVA9505891 
DOCKET NO.  93-09 169     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg,
Florida

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for basal cell carcinoma of the
right ear with disfigurement.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. L. Prichard, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran was born in December 1915 and had active Army service
from March 1942 to February 1946, and Air Force service in March
1951, and from May 1951 to August 1952.  During his Army service
he was stationed in Florida where he was a Group Training drill
instructor prior to April 1944.  Except for a brief period in
1951-1952 when he was in Alabama, he has resided in Florida since
about 1947 where he has been an attorney, teacher, publisher  and
writer.

The veteran contends that he has developed basal cell carcinoma
of the right ear as a result of active service.  He argues that
he spent many hours in the Florida sun as a drill instructor, and
that this exposure resulted in skin cancer on his right ear.  He
states that he was treated with silver nitrate for a skin
infection of the ear in service, which he believes was an early
manifestation of the cancer.  In 1987 he was diagnosed with a
Stage II basal cell carcinoma of the right ear posterosuperior
helix.

During the course of his current appeal, the veteran has raised
the issue of entitlement to service connection for the residuals
of exposure to mustard gas or other chemical agents, to include
basal cell carcinoma of the right ear.  He argues that he was
exposed to these chemical agents as a result of his duties as a
drill instructor, that this involved gas chamber drills and
attendance at chemical warfare school, that he later served as a
chemical warfare non commissioned officer and officer with
further exposure to gas and that this exposure resulted in the
basal cell carcinoma of the right ear.  The regional office (RO)
has not developed this issue, and has not considered the
veteran's claim for service connection for the residuals of
exposure to mustard gas, to include basal cell carcinoma.  The RO
has only considered entitlement to service connection for
carcinoma due to exposure to sunlight.  He has not yet been
offered the opportunity to prove actual service causation of his
skin cancer under the recently decided Combee v. Brown, 34 F. 3rd
1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a duty to consider
all issues raised during the course of the veteran's appeal.
Martin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 411, 413 (1991).  In addition,
all issues which are inextricably intertwined must be considered
together.  Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180, 183 (1991).  The
Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) believes that the issues of
entitlement to service connection for basal cell carcinoma of the
right ear and entitlement to service connection for the residuals
of mustard gas exposure, to include the basal cell carcinoma of
the right ear, are inextricably intertwined.  Therefore, in order
to afford the veteran due process and to assist him in the
development of his claims, the Board finds that it must remand
this case for the following development:

1.  Copies of complete Miami, Florida VA
Medical Center outpatient and inpatient
records from 1947 to 1983 and from 1987 to
date should be obtained and associated
with the claims file (there are currently
on file some treatment records from August
1983 to March 1987).

2.  The RO should fully develop and
adjudicate the veteran's claim for
entitlement to service connection for the
residuals of mustard gas exposure, to
include obtaining service personnel
records and reports as to whether he would
have been exposed to chemicals or mustard
gas in the performance of duties and, if
so, the details thereof.

3.  When the above evidentiary development
has been completed, medical opinion in
this case should be sought as to the
likelihood of the veteran's skin cancer of
the right ear being caused by an incident
of active service.

Following completion of these developments, the RO should review
the veteran's claim on the basis of the additional evidence.  If
the decision remains unfavorable to the veteran, both he and his
representative should be issued an appropriate supplemental
statement of the case.  The case should then be returned to the
Board for further appellate review.  The purpose of this remand
is to afford the veteran due process and to assist in the
development of his claim, and the Board does not intimate any
opinion, either legal or factual, as to the ultimate disposition
warranted in this case.

          SAMUEL W. WARNER
          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).