BVA9504797 DOCKET NO. 93-11 745 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Wichita, Kansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of varicocele surgery and a urinary tract disorder, claimed as hematuria. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tresa Schlecht, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from December 1950 to December 1952. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 1993 rating decision of the Wichita, Kansas, Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to service connection for residuals of varicocele surgery and a urinary condition. REMAND The veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for the residuals of left varicocele surgery which he contends was performed during service. The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), in February 1992, stated that there were no service medical records on file for the appellant due to fire- related service. There are no service records or service medical records currently associated with the claims folder, other than documents verifying service. However, the appellant alleges that he was treated in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, that he was hospitalized for varicocele surgery at Fort Lawton, Washington, and that he was also treated while stationed in Japan with the 710th Military Police Company. The NPRC has responded that there are no records on file from the 710th Military Police Company during the period the appellant indicated he was stationed in Japan, and no other records were located in response to the RO's search request. As pointed out by the appellant's representative, the file does not reflect that a request has been made for records of the Office of the Surgeon General to determine whether there is any record of hospitalization for varicocele surgery which the appellant contends occurred in about December 1951. The appellant contends on appeal that a search for such records should be conducted. The appellant further contends that a search of the morning reports and sick reports of the appellant's unit would verify his statements that he reported for treatment as he has alleged. The RO has not specifically requested a search for such records, and there is no evidence in the file that an attempt was made to find morning reports or sick reports for the time periods that the appellant was stationed in Fort Campbell, Kentucky, or in Fort Lawton, Washington. Because the appellant's service medical records, which would reflect whether he underwent varicocele surgery while in service, have been destroyed, VA has a duty to advise the appellant regarding alternate methods of supporting his claim. See Dixon v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 261 (1992). The appellant contends on appeal that he has not been advised of alternate methods of proof of his claim and that he has not been provided an opportunity to submit such evidence. The medical records before the Board do not include an examination to determine whether the veteran does in fact have residuals of varicocele surgery or disability due to a urinary condition, nor does other medical evidence of record provide sufficient information upon which to make such a determination. After a careful review of the record, the Board is of the opinion that further evidentiary development is required. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The RO should request that the medical records compiled by the Office of the Surgeon General be searched for any relevant extracts, and, if such records are available, the RO should associate them with the claims folder. If no relevant records are available, this should be noted in the claims folder. 2. The RO should request a search for the morning reports and sick reports of the appellant's units, and the RO should request the NPRC to search all applicable secondary sources for any relevant treatment the appellant may have received during service. 3. The RO should also inform the veteran of alternative types of evidence that he may submit or request the RO to obtain with respect to documenting varicocele surgery during service, such as medical records or employment medical records proximate to service, lay statements reflecting knowledge of the appellant's medical history, or other methods of proof. The file should reflect that the appellant has been so advised. 4. The RO should schedule the appellant for a urologic examination to determine the current nature and severity of any residuals of varicocele surgery and the current nature and etiology of any urinary condition. The examiner should determine whether the appellant has had varicocele surgery, and, if so, elicit a medical history of the circumstances of the surgery and any subsequent treatment or symptomatology. The examiner should state whether the surgery was performed during appellant's service, if possible, and should state whether the appellant has any residuals of that surgery currently. The examiner should also state whether a varicocele surgery is related to appellant's current urinary condition, if such a condition is found. The claims folder must be made available to the examiner before the examination. When the specified development has been accomplished, the case should be reviewed by the RO. In the event that the benefits sought are not granted, the veteran and his representative should be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable 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. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN 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).