BVA9508090 
DOCKET NO.  90-53 365     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for a right knee
disorder, currently evaluated at 10 percent.

2.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of septoplasty.

3.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of the removal of a dermatofibroma of the nose.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Nancy R. Kegerreis, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from September 1978 to
September 1988.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
from an April 1989 rating decision by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
which denied an increased evaluation for a right knee disorder,
residuals of septoplasty, and residuals of the removal of a
dermatofibroma of the nose.

In February 1995, the Board notified the veteran at his current
residential address of record that, because the Board Member who
had conducted his hearing was no longer at the Board, he had the
right to another hearing by a Member of the Board.  Since the
veteran did not respond within the requisite time period, it was
assumed that he did not want an additional hearing.

REMAND

By Board remand, dated in November 1990, the RO was requested to
provide two medical examinations, one by a specialist in
orthopedics to determine the nature and extent of any disability
of the right knee and the other by a clinical specialist to
determine the nature and extent of any nasal disability found.
The Board requested that the claims folder be made available to
the examiners for review.

Unfortunately, the claims file was apparently not made available
prior to the requested examinations early in 1991.  The veteran
then failed to report when the examinations were rescheduled in
November 1993 because he apparently had not received notification
of his appointment.  It was later found that the address to which
the information had been sent was not his residential address and
that the veteran was transient at the time.

Under the circumstances,  to allow the veteran every
consideration with respect to his appeal, it is the opinion of
the Board that further development of this case is warranted.
Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  The veteran should be afforded an
orthopedic examination to determine the
nature and extent of his service-connected
right knee disorder.  The examination
should be conducted in accordance with the
pertinent provisions of Chapter 2 of the VA
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations (1985).  Any indicated
evaluations, studies, and tests deemed
necessary by the examiner should be
accomplished.  All functional impairment
attributable to the disability should be
reported.  The veteran's claims file must
be made available to the examiner in
connection with the evaluation.

2.  The veteran should be examined by an
ear, nose, and throat specialist, if
possible, to determine the nature and
extent of any current disability due to
residuals of septoplasty and the removal of
a dermatofibroma of the nose.  The
examination should be conducted in
accordance with the pertinent provisions of
Chapter 3 of the VA Physician's Guide for
Disability Evaluation Examinations (1985).
Any indicated evaluations, studies, and
tests deemed necessary by the examiner
should be accomplished.  The veteran's
claims file must be made available to the
examiner.

3.  When the requested development has been
completed, the case should be readjudicated
by the RO, to include consideration of the
applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.321 (b)(1)
(1994).

The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, after
compliance with the provisions for processing appeals, including
the issuance of a supplemental statement of the case.  The
purpose of this remand is to obtain additional evidence and
ensure that the veteran is afforded all due process.  The Board
intimates no opinion as to the ultimate determinations warranted
pending completion of the requested development.

          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 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).