BVA9505483 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 168     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri

THE ISSUES

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen
a claim for service connection for a duodenal ulcer.

2.  Whether clear and unmistakable error exists in the rating
decision of
February 18, 1955, in which service connection for a duodenal
ulcer was denied.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and his wife.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

T. Reichelderfer, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from December 1952 to December
1954.  In a 1955 rating decision, service connection for a
duodenal ulcer was denied.  The basis of the denial was that an
ulcer was not found on the last examination.  In June 1990, the
Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) addressed the issue of
entitlement to service connection for a duodenal ulcer.  In
addition to noting the finality of the prior decision, the Board
reviewed the merits of the case.

This case arises from rating decisions of March 1992 and July
1992 from the
St. Louis, Missouri, Regional Office (RO).

REMAND

The veteran contends that the RO erred when it found that new and
material evidence had not been received to reopen his claim for
service connection for a duodenal ulcer.

After a review of the record, the Board is of the opinion that
additional development of the evidence is necessary prior to
further consideration of the veteran's claim.  In particular, the
records indicate that the veteran was a member of the Army
Reserve following his release from active duty in 1954 to his
discharge from service in 1960.  Additionally, he testified at
his personal hearing, conducted in September 1992, that he
provided medical records concerning his ulcer to the Army Reserve
during this time to assess his fitness for continued service.
The Board believes that such records would be useful in assessing
the veteran's claim.  The veteran and his representative have
also requested that these records be obtained.

The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that
the duty to assist veterans in the development of facts pertinent
to their claim, under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991) and 38
C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993), as set forth by the Court in Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90 (1990), requires that the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) accomplish additional development of the
evidence if the record currently before it is inadequate.

The issue of whether the 1955 rating decision contained clear and
unmistakable error was certified for appeal.  Our review reflects
that the veteran may not have entered specific allegations that
would validly raise to the level of clear and unmistakable error.

The veteran and the representative have complained that the
documents forwarded to the veteran are technical.  We agree.
However, repeated decisions of the Court demand such technical
reasons and bases for the decision.

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following:

1.  The RO should request the veteran's
Army Reserve service medical records from
1954 to 1960 from the National Personnel
Records Center (NPRC).

2.  Following receipt of the above-
requested records, or a definitive response
from the NPRC, the RO should again review
the veteran's claim and determine if new
and material evidence has been received to
reopen his claim for service connection for
a duodenal ulcer.  If the decision remains
adverse to the veteran, he and his
representative should be provided with a
supplemental statement of the case, and
with a reasonable period of time within
which to respond thereto.  The case should
thereafter be returned to the Board for
further consideration as appropriate.

3.  The veteran and the representative are
placed on notice that if there is an intent
to continue the appeal in regard to the
claim of clear and unmistakable error, the
additional allegations are warranted.  The
veteran and the representative should
attempt to identify the clear and
unmistakable error in the rating decision.
In addition (although a technical matter),
the parties are invited to address whether
the 1955 rating decision became subsumed
when there was de novo review by the Board
in 1990.

The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this
case.  The veteran need take no action unless he is so informed.
The purposes of this REMAND are to obtain additional evidence and
to ensure compliance with due process considerations.

          H. N. SCHWARTZ
          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).