BVA9505507 
DOCKET NO.  92-15 011     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Albuquerque,
New Mexico

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for undifferentiated
schizophrenia, currently rated at 10 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Alberto H. Zapata, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from July 1968 to March 1969.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal from a rating decision of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

After being medically discharged from service in March 1969 for
undifferentiated schizophrenia, the veteran was granted a 50
percent disability rating which was later raised to 70 percent in
October 1969.  After a series of subsequent rating decisions in
which his disability rating was modified, the veteran's
disability rating for schizophrenia was reduced to a
noncompensable rating in August 1987.  After a Board decision
remanding the case for an up-to-date psychiatric examination, the
RO granted an increase to a 10 percent rating in June 1994 and
the veteran is appealing that decision seeking a total rating for
his psychiatric disability.

REMAND

A review of the record reveals that the veteran was incarcerated
in January 1989 after being convicted of a homicide.

The May 1994 VA Compensation and Pension Psychiatric report
assessing the veteran's claim for an increased rating chronicled
much of the veteran's prior history of psychiatric disability
cited above.  The examiner also noted that the veteran was taking
Loxitane, an anti-psychotic agent, which did have some effect in
reducing the veteran's auditory and visual hallucinations.  The
examiner reported that the Loxitane does help the veteran in
that, according to the veteran, it helped make the voices he was
hearing go away and "got rid of the things" he saw in his room.
However, despite being under Loxitane therapy, the examiner still
reported that the veteran was actively hallucinating during the
interview.  Given the import of the efficacy of the veteran's
drug therapy in the assessment of his claim for the disability at
issue, the Board is of the opinion that further psychiatric
examination is warranted.  The psychiatric evaluation of the
veteran should also include an assessment of his social and
industrial impairment and the efficacy of current medication
thereupon.

In light of these circumstances, the case is REMANDED to the RO
for the following actions:

1.  The RO should request that the New
Mexico Department of Corrections make
arrangements to have the veteran undergo a
psychiatric examination by a Board
certified specialist, if available.  All
indicated studies should be performed.
The examiner is specifically requested to
address the efficacy of the veteran's
current drug therapy vis-a-vis controlling
active psychotic manifestations.  The
examiner must assign a Global Assessment
of Functioning Score consistent with the
American Psychiatric Association's
DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL FOR MENTAL
DISORDERS (3d ed. rev., 1987) and explain
what the assigned score represents.  The
rationale for all opinions expressed
should be explained.

2.  Thereafter, the RO should readjudicate
the issue on appeal.

If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the
veteran's satisfaction, the veteran should be provided a
Supplemental Statement of the Case on all issues in appellate
status and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further
appellate action, if otherwise in order.  No action is required
of the veteran unless he is otherwise notified by the RO.  By
this remand the Board intimates no opinion as to any final
outcome warranted.

          ROBERT E. SULLIVAN
          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).