BVA9502838 
DOCKET NO.  93-07 367     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Hartford, Connecticut

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for residuals of sunburn on
the face and arms.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for nevi.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for residuals of
bronchitis.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

W. Pope, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service with the U. S. Army from July 1964
to June 1967, and active service in support of Operation Desert
Shield/Desert Storm from November 21, 1990, to May 26, 1991.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a July 1992 rating decision. In November 1992 the
veteran notified the VA that she had moved from Connecticut to
Georgia.

During the appeal process the veteran raised questions
concerning service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder.  However, this issue is not properly before the Board
for appellate review and is referred to the RO for appropriate
action.

REMAND

The veteran contends, in essence, that service connection is
warranted for the residuals of sunburn and for nevi caused by
exposure to the sunlight during her recent active service in
Saudi Arabia.

The veteran's service records confirm that she was stationed in
Saudi Arabia from January 13, 1991 to May 6, 1991.  The service
medical records for her period of active service from November
1990 to May 1991, including an April 1991 preseparation
examination, are negative for complaints or findings of skin
problems.

An August 1991 VA dermatology examination revealed that the
veteran had "[m]any freckles over [her] shoulder, arms & face.
[No] BCC/SCC (basal cell carcinoma/

squamous cell carcinoma).  Few nevi."  The examiner's assessment
was "[m]ild actinic damage."

Unfortunately, the above examination did not clearly identify the
actinic damage to the veteran's skin or the type of nevi found.
Accordingly, to ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the
claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claims and to
ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is
REMANDED to the RO for the following development:

1.  The veteran should receive another VA
dermatology examination in order to
ascertain the nature and likely etiology of
any actinic damage to her skin.  The claims
file, including a copy of this REMAND,
should be made available to the examiner
before the examination, for proper review of
the medical history.  The examination report
is to reflect that such a review of the
claims file was made and specifically
identify all of the dermatological
abnormalities present, and include the
examiners' opinion as to the medical
probability that each abnormality was the
result of sun exposure or otherwise related
to service in Saudi Arabia from January to
May 1991 as claimed by the veteran.

2.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should again review the record.  If
any benefit sought on appeal remains denied,
the veteran and her representative should be
furnished a supplemental statement of the
case and given the opportunity to respond
thereto.

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.

          STEPHEN L. WILKINS
          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).