BVA9500319 
DOCKET NO.  93-06 702     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville,
Tennessee

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased evaluation for psychoneurosis,
anxiety reaction, currently evaluated as 50 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Lois N. Petzold, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from August 1951 to May 1953.
This appeal arises from a February 1992 rating decision of the
Nashville, Tennessee, Regional Office (RO), which confirmed the
current 50 percent evaluation for the veteran's psychiatric
disorder.

In a June 1993 informal hearing presentation, the veteran's
representative raises the issue of entitlement to a total
disability rating based on individual unemployability due to
service connected disabilities.  This matter is referred back to
the RO for the appropriate development.

REMAND

 The veteran has asserted that his service connected psychiatric
disability is more disabling than currently evaluated.  He
contends that he is often unable to function, cannot work, and
must stay on medication because of this disability.

The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).
The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) has held
that the duty to assist the veteran in developing available facts
and evidence to support his claim includes obtaining available
medical records which are relevant to the claimant's appeal and
obtaining adequate VA examinations. Littke v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 90 (1990).

A thorough and contemporaneous medical examination which takes
into account the records of prior medical treatment must be
conducted, so that the evaluation of the claimed disability will
be a fully informed one.  Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121
(1991).  In the case at hand, the veteran has not been examined
by the VA since opening his current claim for an increased
evaluation in November 1991.  In fact, it does not appear that
the veteran has been examined for the purpose of disabilty
evaluation since 1988.  This would not be considered a
contemporaneous examination.  Therefore, once the RO obtains the
veteran's most recent medical records, he will have to be
afforded a current VA examination.  Moreover the VA has a duty to
acknowledge and consider all regulations which are potentially
applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the
record, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusion.
Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991).

In order to comply with the Court mandates discussed above, the
Board finds that additional assistance is required.  The case is
REMANDED to the RO for action as follows:

1.  The veteran should be asked to provide
the names and addresses of all medical
providers from whom he has sought treatment
since October 1992 for his psychiatric
disability.  After obtaining any necessary
release from the veteran, the named
providers should be contacted and requested
to provide complete clinical records
concerning all such psychiatric treatment
of the veteran.

2.  After the above-mentioned records have
been obtained, the veteran should be
afforded a special VA psychiatric
examination to determine the nature and
extent of disability due to the veteran's
psychiatric disorder.  All indicated tests
deemed appropriate, to include
psychological testing, should be conducted.
The claims folder should be made available
to the examiner prior to the examination so
that he or she may review pertinent aspects
of the veteran's medical history.  The
examiner should then express an opinion as
to the effects of the disability upon the
veteran's ordinary activity and how the
disability impairs the veteran
industrially.

Thereafter, the claim should be reviewed by the RO.  If the claim
continues to be denied, the veteran and his representative should
be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case,
and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond.  The case
should then be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration.

          C.W. SYMANSKI
          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).