BVA9500511 
DOCKET NO.  93-02 601     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for Alzheimer's disease, to
include organic brain syndrome, as a result of exposure to
ionizing radiation.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

William J. Jefferson, III  Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from May 1944 to August 1946.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal from a rating decision of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA)  St. Louis, Missouri, Regional Office (RO).

The veteran claimed residuals of exposure to ionizing radiation
in July 1988.  The veteran was requested to specify the
disability which he was claiming as a result of exposure to
ionizing radiation in letters from the RO, dated in August and
October 1988, but he did not indicate such, and his claim was not
prosecuted.

The veteran reopened his claim, and in a February 1992 rating
decision, service connection for Alzheimer's disease, to include
organic brain syndrome was denied.

REMAND

The veteran maintains that he has Alzheimer's disease as a result
of exposure to ionizing radiation as part of the United States
occupational forces in Japan, after the atomic bomb was dropped
thee in World War II.  He has testified that he served with the
2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Division, in the Nagasaki, Japan, area.
He was a mortar crewman and apparently was in Japan in 1945-1946.

It is important to note that during pendency of this appeal, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined
that § 5 of the Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure
Compensation Standards Act, Pub. L. No. 98-542, 98 Stat. 2725,
2727-29 (1984)  protects veteran's opportunity to show direct
service connection under 38 U.S.C.A. §  1110 (West 1991) and 38
C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1993) even though his or her claimed
disability is not potentially radiogenic under 59 Fed. Reg. 5107
(1991) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.311).  Combee v.
Principi, 4 Vet.App. 78 (1993), rev'd sub nom. Combee v. Brown,
No. 93-7107,  (U.S. Ct. App. Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 1994).  In such a
case, a claimant must be given the opportunity to prove that his
exposure to ionizing radiation during service actually caused the
disability or disabilities for which he or she is claiming
service connection, and that service connection is warranted
under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991), and 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.303 (d).

Furthermore, while there was not a denial of the veteran's claim
in 1988, but a failure to prosecute the claim since he did not
respond sufficiently to requests for further information from the
RO, it is important to note that new statutes and regulations
regarding exposure to ionizing radiation are in effect.  See, 38
U.S.C.A. § 1112; 59 Fed. Reg. 5107 (1991) (to be codified at 38
C.F.R. § 3.311).  It has been determined that it is imperative
that veteran's claims be examined thoroughly in light of the
language of the new regulations.  Sawyer v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App.
130, 133 (1991).

Additionally, we note that the veteran's complete VA outpatient
treatment and hospitalization records prior to October 1985 and
subsequent to September 1986 are not associated with the claims
folder.  He states that he was seen for weight loss in 1984-1985.
He apparently was hospitalized in May 1989.

In consideration of the foregoing, this case is REMANDED to the RO
for the following:

1.  The RO should obtain copies of the veteran's
complete outpatient treatment and hospitalization
records from 1984 to the present, from the VA Medical
Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas, and associate those
records with the claims folder.

2.  The RO should readjudicate the issue of
entitlement to service connection for Alzheimer's
disease, to include organic brain syndrome as a
result of exposure to ionizing radiation, pursuant to
Combee.  If the decision remains adverse to the
appellant,
notification to the appellant and his representative
of the denial via a statement of the case should
include the holding in Combee.  The veteran, and his
representative should be specifically informed that
claimants now have the opportunity to prove causation
on a radiation basis for non-radiogenic diseases,
should he claim such.

In taking this action, the Board intimates no opinion as to the
final outcome of this case.  No action is required of the veteran
until he receives further notice from the RO.

          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) (1993).