BVA9506272 
DOCKET NO.  93-10 876     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson,
Mississippi

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an effective date earlier than April 21, 1989, for
the assignment of an 80 percent disability rating for nystagmus,
vestibular in character, with defective central vision and visual
fields.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

R. M. Yonemoto, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from March 1948 to October 1954.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal from a rating decision of August 1992 by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Jackson,
Mississippi.

In a statement of May 1993, the veteran's representative asserted
that a 100 percent schedular evaluation should have been assigned
to the veteran's service-connected eye disability retroactively
to 1954.  He also requested that the effective date of the
assignment of the total disability rating based on individual
unemployability should have been prior to October 12, 1990.
These two issues have not been developed and certified for
appeal, nor are inextricably intertwined with the issue on
appeal.  These issues are referred to the RO for appropriate
action.

REMAND

The veteran's reopened claim for an increased rating for his
service-connected nystagmus, vestibular in character, with
defective central vision and visual fields was received on April
21, 1989.  Attached to the claim was a copy of a private clinical
report of November 1988 showing the results of an eye
examination.  This report shows that the veteran was referred to
the VA.

In August 1992, the RO increased the disability rating for the
veteran's service-connected eye disorder from 50 percent to
80 percent, effective from April 21, 1989, under 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.321(b)(1).

A review of the rating decision of August 1992 and the statement
of the case dated in February 1993 discloses that the RO did not
consider the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) which we
consider to be pertinent in the veteran's case.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case should be
REMANDED to the RO for additional development.

In view of the foregoing, the case is REMANDED for the following
actions:

1.  The RO should attempt to obtain and
associate with the claims folder copies of
all VA treatment reports, inpatient or
outpatient, for the veteran from March 1988
to May 1989.  The veteran should be
requested to assist in this matter.

2.  The RO should then consider the
provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) (1994)
with the issue of entitlement to an
effective date earlier than April 21, 1989,
for the assignment of an 80 percent
evaluation for the veteran's
service-connected eye disorder.

When the above development is completed, the case should be
reviewed by the RO.  If the decision remains adverse to the
veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case, which contains the provisions
of 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) and be afforded an opportunity to
respond thereto.  The case should then be returned to the Board
for further appellate consideration.  No action is required of
the veteran until he receives further notice.  The purpose of
this REMAND is to procure clarifying data.  By this remand, the
Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate determination
warranted in this case.

          WILLIAM J. REDDY
          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).