BVA9506001 
DOCKET NO.  93-16 229     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to special monthly pension based on the need for
regular aid and attendance of another person.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:  Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

B. Anderson, Counsel

REMAND

The appellant had active duty from September 1951 to June 1953.
This appeal arises from a September 1992 rating decision of the
Waco, Texas, regional office (RO).  In that decision, the RO
determined that the evidence was insufficient to show factual
need of the appellant for aid and attendance.

The decision and the statement of the case (SOC) indicate that
the evidence considered essentially consisted of July 1992
outpatient progress notes reflecting the severity of the
appellant's vision impairment.  No special examination to
determine the need for regular aid and attendance of another
person was conducted, although the appellant contends that he
requires daily assistance in most of his activities of daily
living.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).  The SOC does not
include a discussion of how cited laws and regulations affected
the agency's decision..  38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(1)(B) (West 1991).

To ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has met
its duty to assist the appellant in developing the facts
pertinent to the claim and to ensure full compliance with due
process requirements, the Board is persuaded that further
development is warranted.  Accordingly, case is REMANDED to the
RO for the following actions:

1.  The RO should take appropriate action
to ensure that current records of any
medical treatment received by the
appellant, particularly reports of VA
treatment, have been requested and
associated with the claims folder.

2.  The appellant should then be afforded a
VA examination to evaluate his current need
for regular aid and attendance.  All
indicated special tests and studies should
be conducted, and clinical findings should
be recorded in detail.  The claims folder
should be made available to the examiner
for review before the examination.  The
examiner should be requested to provide on
opinion as to whether the appellant is able
to perform the various activities of daily
living without assistance of another
person.

After the development requested above has been completed to the
extent possible, the RO should again review the record.  If the
benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the appellant and
representative should be furnished a supplemental SOC and given
the applicable opportunity to reply.  Thereafter, the case should
be returned to the Board, if in order.  The Board intimates no
opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case.  The appellant
need take no action until so notified.

          CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM
          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 action has been taken in
accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).