BVA9505344 
DOCKET NO.  94-39 050     DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles,
California

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for pulmonary disease, to
include as secondary to asbestos exposure.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and spouse

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

James L. March, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from August 1958 to September
1966.  This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) from a December 1993 rating decision of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles,
California.

REMAND

The veteran alleges that his pulmonary disease was caused by
asbestos exposure  during service.  The veteran worked as a
missile technician during service, and exposure to asbestos is
conceded.  The Board notes that there has been no clinical
diagnosis of asbestos-related pulmonary disease.  However, VA X-
rays taken in October 1992 revealed subsegmental atelectasis of
the left lower lung with scarring, and pleural thickening at both
costophrenic angles.  As the veteran points out, these are signs
which may indicate asbestos-related disease.  Although VA and the
veteran's private physician have treated him for chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)--a disease which has not
been attributed to asbestos exposure, the Board believes that a
thorough VA pulmonary examination should be conducted to
determine whether his pulmonary disorder is asbestos related.

In light of the foregoing circumstances, the Board concludes that
further RO actions are warranted.  Accordingly, the case is
REMANDED to the RO for the following actions:

1.  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 may possess additional records
pertinent to his claim.  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.

2.  Then, the RO should arrange for a VA
examination of the veteran by a board-
certified pulmonary specialist, if
available, to determine the current nature
and severity of the veteran's pulmonary
disease.  It is imperative that the claims
folder and a copy of this Remand be provided
to the examining physician for review prior
to the examination.  All indicated studies
should be conducted.  The examiner should
render an opinion as to whether it is at
least as likely as not that the veteran has
an asbestos-related pulmonary disease.

3.  Thereafter, the RO should undertake any
other indicated development and readjudicate
the issue of entitlement to service
connection for pulmonary disease, to include
as secondary to asbestos exposure.

If the benefit sought on appeal are not granted to the veteran's
satisfaction, the veteran and his representative should be issued
a supplemental statement of the case and be afforded a reasonable
opportunity to reply.  Thereafter, the case should be returned to
the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in
order.

In taking this action, the Board implies no conclusion as to any
ultimate outcome warranted.  No action is required of the veteran
until he is otherwise notified by the RO.

          ROBERT E. SULLIVAN
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

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).