BVA9506527 
DOCKET NO.  91-37 968     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for pes planus,
bilateral, with varus deformity of the ankle with Morton's
neuroma between the second and third toes, bilateral, currently
evaluated as 30 percent disabling.

2.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for dysthymia
secondary to pes planus, currently evaluated as 30 percent
disabling.

3.  Entitlement to a total disability evaluation for compensation
on the basis of individual unemployability.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Ronald R. Bosch, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

This appeal arose from an April 1990 rating decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St.
Petersburg, Florida.  The RO denied entitlement to service
connection for a psychiatric disorder and an increased evaluation
for bilateral pes planus with a varus deformity of the ankle,
right greater than left.  The RO denied entitlement to a total
disability evaluation for compensation on the basis of individual
unemployability in September 1990.

The veteran had active service from August 10 to October 1, 1964.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) REMANDED the case to the
RO for further development in December 1991.

The RO granted entitlement to service connection for dysthymia as
secondary to service-connected pes planus with assignment of a 10
percent evaluation, and affirmed the prior denials of entitlement
to an increased evaluation for bilateral pes planus and a total
disability evaluation for compensation on the basis of individual
unemployability.  The above determination was affirmed in August
1992, January 1993, and May 1993.

In a June 1994 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to
increased evaluations of 30 percent each for bilateral pes planus
and dysthymia; affirmed the prior denial of entitlement to a
total disability evaluation for compensation on the basis of
individual unemployability, and denied entitlement to service
connection for Epstein Barr Syndrome as secondary to service-
connected disabilities.

The RO affirmed the denial of entitlement to a total disability
evaluation for compensation on the basis of individual
unemployability when it issued a rating decision in January 1995.

In a July 1994 statement on appeal, the claimant denied that she
had ever claimed service connection for Epstein Barr Syndrome as
secondary to her service-connected disabilities.  She averred
that Epstein Barr Syndrome had intensified her service-connected
disabilities.  The appellant has not claimed service connection
for Epstein Barr Syndrome on a direct basis as due to service and
has denied claiming such disorder as secondary to her service-
connected disabilities.  The Board does not construe Epstein Barr
Syndrome as pertinent to a claim for compensation benefits from
VA on any basis.

REMAND

In statements on appeal the appellant has claimed that she was
found infeasible for training under the VA Vocational
Rehabilitation program.  A VA Vocational Rehabilitation Folder
has not been associated with the claims file.

The claimant is in receipt of Social Security Disability
benefits.  The claims file contains a substantial quantity of
medical records pertaining to the appellant's claim for
retirement benefits from her hometown State on the basis of her
teaching career.  She has been awarded benefits primarily because
of her psychiatric disorder, indicated to be schizophrenia. It
does not appear that such records are the same as those submitted
for Social Security Disability benefits.

It does not appear the VA examiners had the veteran's claims file
for review when they conducted VA examinations in May 1994.  See
Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991) ([F]ulfillment of
the statutory duty to assist...includes the conduct of a thorough
and contemporaneous medical examination, one which takes into
account the records of prior medical treatment, so that the
evaluation of the claimed disability will be a truly informed
one." (emphasis added).

The Board is of the opinion that the above discussed missing
evidence and contemporaneous VA examinations would materially
assist in the adjudication of the veteran's appeal.

Pursuant to VA's duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to her claim under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West
1991);  38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1994), the Board is deferring a
final adjudication of the issues prepared and certified for
appellate review pending a REMAND of the case to the RO for
further development as follows:

1.  The RO should obtain and associate with
the claims file the appellant's VA
Vocational Rehabilitation folder.

2.  The RO should contact the Social
Security Administration and request it to
furnish photocopies of all medical records
pertinent to the veteran's award of
disability benefits.  If medical evidence
utilized in processing such claim is not
available, that fact should be noted in the
claims file.

3.  The veteran should be scheduled for an
examination by a VA podiatrist to determine
the extent of severity of her pes planus,
bilateral, with varus deformity of the
ankle with Morton's neuroma between the
second and third toes, bilateral.  The
examination should be conducted in
accordance with the diagnostic procedures
outlined in Chapter 2 of the VA Physician's
Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations.  All indicated studies should
be conducted.  The claims file must be made
available to and reviewed by the podiatrist
prior to the examination.

4.  After completing all of the foregoing
actions, the RO should schedule the veteran
for a VA psychiatric examination to
determine the extent of severity of
dysthymia secondary to pes planus.  It
should be noted that previously reported
schizophrenia is not service-connected.
The examination is to be conducted in
accordance with the diagnostic procedures
outlined in Chapter 14 of the VA
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations.  All indicated studies
including psychological studies should be
conducted.  The psychiatrist should assess
the impact of dysthymia secondary to
service-connected pes planus
and service-connected pes planus in general
on the veteran's ability to obtain and
maintain gainful employment.  The report of
examination should include assignment of a
numerical code under the Global Assessment
of Functioning Scale as noted in the
American Psychiatric Association's
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, (3rd. ed., 1987), and include a
definition of the code assigned.  The
claims file must be made available to
and reviewed by the examiner prior to
the examination.  Any opinion expressed
must be accompanied by a complete
rationale.

5.  Thereafter the RO should review all
examination reports to ensure that they are
in complete compliance with the
instructions contained in this remand.  If
the examination reports are not in complete
compliance, the

RO should take appropriate corrective
action.

6.  After undertaking any development
deemed appropriate in addition to that
specified above, the RO should readjudicate
the issues of entitlement to increased
evaluations for bilateral pes planus and
dysthymia secondary thereto, and a total
disability evaluation for compensation on
the basis of individual unemployability.

If the benefits requested on appeal are not granted to the
veteran's satisfaction, the RO should issue a supplemental
statement of the case.  A reasonable period of time for a
response should be afforded.  Thereafter, the case should be
returned to the Board for further appellate review, if otherwise
in order.  By this REMAND, the Board intimates no opinion as to
any final outcome warranted.  No action is required of the
veteran until he is notified by the RO.

          BRUCE KANNEE
          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).