BVA9503867 
DOCKET NO.  93-04 283     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an extension of a temporary total rating for
convalescence benefits beyond October 31, 1991.

2.  Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 20 percent
for a low back disorder.

3.  Entitlement to a total disability rating based on
unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Margaret L. Peak, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from December 1983 to November
1986.  This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) on appeal from decisions of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

REMAND

The veteran was provided a VA general medicine examination in
March 1993; however, he has not been provided a recent VA
orthopedic or neurological examination to assess the level of
disability caused by his back disorder.  Moreover, additional
records pertinent to his claims may be available.  In light of
these circumstances, the Board concludes that further development
is warranted.  Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for
the following actions:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and
request that he identify the names,
addresses, and approximate dates of
treatment for all VA and non-VA health care
providers who have treated him in recent
years for service-connected disability.
With any necessary authorization from the
veteran, the RO should attempt to obtain
copies of pertinent treatment records
identified by the veteran which have not
been previously secured.

2.  When the above development has been
completed, the veteran should be afforded VA
orthopedic and neurologic examinations of
his low back by appropriate board-certified
specialists, if available, to determine the
current nature and extent of all low back
impairment present.  The physicians should
also comment on the impact of the veteran's
low back disability on his employability.  A
VA internal medicine examination should be
conducted to determine the current extent of
the veteran's hypertension.  The physician
should comment on the impact of the
veteran's hypertension on his employability.
All studies indicated at any of the
examinations should be performed.  The
claims folder and a copy of this REMAND
should be provided to the examining
physicians for review prior to their
examinations of the veteran.

3.  The veteran should be requested to
provide an updated statement of his
employment and education history.

4.  When these developments have been
completed, the RO should readjudicate the
issues on appeal.  The RO should consider
the entire history of the service-connected
disabilities and all potentially applicable
regulations, as discussed in Schafrath v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 592-593 (1991).

If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the veteran's
satisfaction, the veteran and his representative should be given
a supplemental statement of the case with regard to the
additional developments and should also be afforded an
opportunity to respond.  Thereafter, the case should be returned
to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in
order.  No action by the veteran or his representative is
required until they are otherwise notified.

          SHANE A. DURKIN
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
          (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

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).