BVA9502694 
DOCKET NO.  93-10 780     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta,
Georgia

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for post-traumatic stress
disorder, currently evaluated as 50 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and his spouse

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

B. Anderson, Counsel

REMAND

The appellant had active duty from July 1964 to July 1975.

This appeal arises from a June 1991 rating decision of the
Atlanta, Georgia, regional office (RO).  In that decision, a 30
percent evaluation was continued for the appellant's service-
connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  The evaluation
was increased to 50 percent disabling by action of a RO hearing
officer in February 1992.  The appellant continues his
disagreement with the rating assigned.

The case was received at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in
May 1993.  In June 1993, the Board received a report of
hospitalization of the appellant by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) in March-May 1993 for treatment of PTSD.  Such
evidence must be referred to the RO for review and preparation of
a supplemental statement of the case unless this procedural right
has been waived by the appellant.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (1994).
Moreover, VA has a duty to assist the appellant in the development
of facts pertinent to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991);
38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1994).  The Board notes from the summary of
the veteran's hospitalization in May 1993 that follow-up treatment
was planned.  Further, the Board observes that in a statement
dated in June 1993, the appellant requested that his claim of
entitlement to a total disability rating for compensation based on
individual unemployability (TDIU), which he had earlier withdrawn,
be reopened.

To ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case
is REMANDED to the RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should take appropriate action
to ensure that all pertinent medical
treatment records since May 1993 are
requested and associated with the claims
folder.

2.  If indicated, the veteran should be
scheduled for a special psychiatric
examination to determine the nature and
extent of his disability from PTSD.
Sufficient data to evaluate the veteran's
social and industrial impairment should be
obtained, including a Global Assessment of
Functioning.  The claims folder should be
available to the examiner for review in
connection with such examination.

3.  The RO should then review the claim for
an increased rating for PTSD and take
appropriate adjudicative action with
respect to the appellant's claim for TDIU,
to include consideration of the additional
evidence submitted and obtained subsequent
to the transfer of the case to the Board.
The RO should provide the appellant and his
representative notice of the determination.
If any benefit sought on appeal, for which
a notice of disagreement has been filed,
remains denied, the appellant and
representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case 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 unless otherwise
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).