BVA9500287 
DOCKET NO.  93- 07 101    )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke,
Virginia

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic
headaches secondary to a head injury.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a seizure disorder or a
syncopal disorder secondary to a head injury.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for chloracne.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. M. Barnard, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from August 1964 to August 1967
and from September 1967 to June 1979.

This appeal arises from an October 1991 rating decision of the
Roanoke, Virginia, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional
Office (RO), which denied entitlement to service connection for
headaches the result of a head injury.  In May 1992 a rating
action was issued which denied entitlement to service connection
for chloracne the result of exposure to Agent Orange.  In August
1992, a rating action was issued that confirmed and continued the
denial of service connection for the residuals of a head injury.

It is noted that a final determination concerning the veteran's
claim for service connection for chloracne will be deferred
pending the outcome of this remand.

REMAND

The veteran contends, in essence, that he suffers from headaches
and a seizure or syncopal disorder as the direct result of a head
injury experienced in a car accident in service.  He states that
he began to suffer from these residuals in service, and that he
continues to suffer from them now.  Therefore, he believes that
service connection should be granted.

VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of all
facts pertinent to his claims.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West
1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993).  This includes the duty to
obtain VA examinations which provide an adequate basis upon which
to determine entitlement to the benefits sought on appeal.
Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1991).  Examinations by
specialists are permissible, when recommended.  Hyder v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991).

In the instant case, a VA neurological examination was performed
in February 1992.  This report indicated the veteran's history of
suffering a head injury in service.  He complained of recurrent
headaches, numbness in his fingertips, and a sensation that he is
falling.  He stated that his brother had epilepsy which
manifested after cranial surgery at the age of three.  He also
reported feeling dizzy and nauseous.  After examining the
veteran, the examiner indicated that the information was not
adequate to reach a conclusion.  It was felt that an
electroencephalogram (EEG) was necessary to ascertain the source
of his complaints, particularly in light of the family history,
which may or may not be important.  Therefore, the examiner
recommended that the veteran be admitted for evaluation of any
head injury residuals.  Specifically, it was noted that an EEG
and a MRI should be performed.

It is noted that the recommendations of the VA examiner were not
followed.  As a result, it is unclear from the current record
whether the veteran suffers from any chronic disabilities which
can be service-connected as a result of his in-service head
injury.

Under the circumstances of this case, it is the conclusion of the
undersigned that additional assistance is necessary, and this
case is REMANDED to the RO for the following:

The RO should admit the veteran to a VA
medical facility for a period of
observation and evaluation in order to
determine whether he suffers from any
chronic residuals of the head injury
experienced in service.  All indicated
special studies, particularly an EEG and a
MRI, should be conducted.  The examiners
should render opinions as to whether the
veteran suffers from headaches, and seizure
or syncopal disorders, as a result of the
in-service head injury.  The claims folder
must be made available to the examiners
prior to the examinations so that the
veteran's entire medical history can be
taken into consideration.

In the event that the veteran's claims remain denied, in whole or
in part, he and his representative should be provided with an
appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and an
opportunity to respond, and the case should be returned to the
Board for further appellate consideration if otherwise in order.

          KENNETH R. ANDREWS, JR.
          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).