BVA9500286 
DOCKET NO.  93- 10 306    )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg,
Florida

THE ISSUE

Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a
claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired
psychiatric disorder.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

 Appellant and his mother

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

James A. Frost, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from October 1966 to March
1967.

This appeal arises from a rating decision in August 1992 by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) in St.
Petersburg, Florida.

The record reveals that a rating decision in September 1979
denied entitlement to service connection for "a nervous
condition".  The veteran was duly notified of the decision.  He
did not file a timely notice of disagreement or a timely
substantive appeal, and the decision became final.

Applicable law and regulations provide that, if new and material
evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which
has been disallowed, VA shall reopen the claim and review the
former disposition of the claim.
38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a).  The United
States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that, when a veteran
seeks to reopen a claim based on new evidence, VA must first
determine whether the evidence is "new and material"; if a
determination is made that the claimant has produced new and
material evidence, the case is reopened and VA must evaluate the
merits of the veteran's claim in light of all of the evidence,
both new and old.  Manio v. Derwinski,
1 Vet.App. 140 (1991).

In the veteran's case, he attempted to reopen his claim in July
1992.  In a rating decision of August 1992, the RO denied service
connection for schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, without
reference to the prior final decision of September 1979.  After
receipt of a notice of disagreement, the RO in October 1992
furnished the veteran with a Statement of the Case, which did not
contain the applicable laws and regulations concerning the
necessity to submit new and material evidence in order to reopen
a prior final decision.  Under the circumstances, the Board finds
that this procedural defect must be corrected prior to appellate
review.  Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following:

The RO should adjudicate the issue of
whether the veteran has submitted new and
material evidence warranting the reopening
of his claim of entitlement to service
connection for an acquired psychiatric
disorder.  If the decision is adverse to
the veteran, he and his representative
should be provided with an appropriate
Supplemental Statement of the Case and an
opportunity to respond thereto.  The case
should then be returned to the Board for
further appellate consideration.  The
purpose of this REMAND is to comply with
applicable law and regulations and with the
Court's holding in Manio.

No action is required of the veteran unless he receives further
notice.

          BRUCE KANNEE
          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).