BVA9508409 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 215     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Wichita, Kansas

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. F. Gussio, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from August 1965 to
January 1969.  He also had multiple periods of active duty for
training, including verified periods from June 24 to July 21,
1990, and June 30 to July 13, 1991.

In addition to the issues stated on the title page, entitlement
to a permanent and total disability rating was denied by rating
action of August 1992 and confirmed in October 1992.  This issue
was included in the supplemental statement of the case in October
1992.  However, in a letter dated in September 1992, but added to
the file subsequent to the October 1992 supplemental statement of
the case, the veteran disclosed that he did not wish to appeal
the denial of nonservice-connected pension claim at that time.
Accordingly, the Board construes this as a written withdrawal of
that claim pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(c).

In April 1995, additional service medical records for the veteran
were forwarded to the Board.  These records have not been
considered by the RO, as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156.

REMAND

The veteran claims that his retinoschises had its first onset
during his active duty for training period in June and July 1990.

On a routine optometry examination in May 1991, the veteran
reported that his last examination was in June 1990.  The
diagnosis was left superior quadrant anopsia.  He was to be
referred to neurology.  On VA hospital summary in October 1991,
the pertinent diagnosis was retinoschises.

In a letter dated in February 1992, the veteran reported that his
symptoms consisted of mild headaches and eye strain during the
summer of June 1990.  He reported that he sought treatment at the
Williams Air Force Base in Arizona.

A review of the record reveals that the June 1990 examination and
treatment records from the Williams Air Force Base in Arizona are
not in the claims file.  Such records are pertinent to the
veteran's appeal and should be obtained by the regional office
(RO).  While the RO has attempted to obtain all treatment records
from the veteran and the National Personal Records Center on
previous occasions, the RO has not attempted to contact the
particular unit and location where the veteran received
treatment.

The Board also notes that the veteran has had multiple periods of
inactive duty for training and that there may be medical records
in his unit pertaining to his eye disorder, particularly any eye
examinations.

To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the appellant in
developing the facts pertinent to the claim, the case is REMANDED
to RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran's
reserve unit and Williams Air Force Base,
AZ, to obtain any records of treatment or
examination of the veteran in June or July
1990.  Any such records should be
associated with the claims folder.

2.  The RO should contact the veteran and
obtain the names and addresses of all
medical care providers who treated the
veteran for his eye disorder, including any
eye examinations, since 1988.  After
securing the necessary release(s), the RO
should obtain these records.

3.  The RO should obtain the names and
addresses of any medical care providers who
have treated the veteran for PTSD.  After
securing the necessary release(s), the RO
should obtain these records.  If such
records are obtained and show a diagnosis
of PTSD, the RO should take action to fully
develop the claim for service connection
for PTSD, including verifying the veteran's
claimed stressors and scheduling another
PTSD examination, if such is deemed
necessary.

4.  When the above-requested development is
completed, the veteran's claims should be
reviewed by the RO in light of the
additional evidence added to the record.
In particular, any additional service
medical records should be reconsidered by
the RO.

If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the veteran and
his representative should be furnished an appropriate
supplemental statement of the case.  After they have had an
adequate opportunity to respond, the case should be returned to
the Board for further appellate review, if in order.  The purpose
of this REMAND is to obtain clarifying data.

          V. L. JORDAN
          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).