BVA9500877 
DOCKET NO.  93-09 637     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania

THE ISSUES

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen
a claim for service connection for a right knee disorder.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric
disorder.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESS AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

D. B. Weiss, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from December 1973 to August 1976.

A February 1987 rating decision denied service connection for a
right knee disorder.  The veteran was notified of this decision
by a letter dated in March 1987, and he did not file a notice of
disagreement within one year thereafter.

The veteran asserts that he was continuously treated in service,
at a psychiatric clinic which may have been private, for an
acquired psychiatric disorder from November 1975, and that he
continued to receive treatment shortly after service at the
Altoona, Pennsylvania, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Medical Center (Transcript of July 1992 hearing at pages 12-13,
and April 1994 hearing at pages 17-19, 23-24).  While the veteran
has, on his own, submitted the Altoona records dating from May
1977, these pertain to the right knee, not a mental disorder.
The VA treatment records from service separation to the present
have not been sought by the regional office (RO).

In an April 1993 statement, the representative asks that
additional efforts including a facilities and private clinic
search, if applicable, be made to obtain the veteran's mental
health treatment records from 1975 to separation.  We note that
the veteran, on his own, has attempted a facilities search;
however, we believe that the RO is better equipped to perform
such a search.

In an October 1993 statement, the representative requests that
the veteran's personnel file be sought in the hope of obtaining a
copy of the January 1976 psychological interview which was the
basis of a proposed revocation of his service security clearance.

In April 1994, the veteran submitted the letter of the same month
from a VA Medical Center doctor, to the effect that "the trauma
that [the veteran] experienced in the service contributed to the
pathology found in his knee in 1978."  This evidence is new and
material, because it is so significant that the merits of the
claim for service connection for a right knee disorder should not
be decided without consideration of it.  See Manio v. Derwinski,
1 Vet.App. 140 (1991).  Therefore, the February 1987 rating
decision is reopened, and the claim for service connection for a
right knee disorder should be considered on a de novo basis.  For
due process reasons, the RO must review the claim on a de novo
basis, prior to the Board.  See Bernard v. Brown 4 Vet.App. 384
(1993).

To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in
developing the facts pertinent to the claims and to ensure full
compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should obtain the names,
addresses, and dates of treatment (month
and year), of all medical care providers
who treated the veteran for a mental
disorder, since the alleged onset of said
disorder in service.  After securing the
necessary release, the RO should attempt to
obtain these records.  This should include
effort to obtain the complete records of
the Altoona VA Medical Center from service
separation to the present, and the records
of the veteran's late family doctor, Dr.
Rooney.

2.  The RO should make another attempt to
secure the veteran's complete service
medical records and should attempt to
secure his service personnel records
through official channels, utilizing the
procedures set forth in the M21-1 Manual
for obtaining mental hygiene records.  This
should include a facilities and private
clinic search, if found to be applicable,
after the development in item 1.

3.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should review the record to
determine if additional VA examination
and/or medical opinion pertinent to
etiology is in order.  The veteran's
request for an independent medical expert's
opinion should also be considered under
38 C.F.R. § 3.328 (1993).

4.  The RO should again review the record
and consider the claim for service
connection for a right knee disorder on a
de novo basis.  If any benefit sought on
appeal remains denied, the appellant and
his representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond thereto.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board), if in order.  The Board intimates no opinion as
to the ultimate outcome of this case.  The appellant need take no
action until otherwise notified.

          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) (1993).