BVA9500985 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 589     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Reno, Nevada

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for impotence with a penile
prosthesis.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. T. Hutcheson, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active military service from March 1951 to June
1952 and from March 1957 to September 1957.  This matter came
before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter "the Board")
on appeal from a June 1992 rating decision of the Reno, Nevada
Regional Office (hereinafter "the RO") which denied service
connection for urinary incontinence.  In August 1992, the RO
denied service connection for impotence with a penile prosthesis.
The veteran has been represented throughout this appeal by the
Disabled American Veterans.

The veteran asserts on appeal that the RO erred in denying
service connection for urinary incontinence and impotence as
the claimed disorders are residuals of the prostatectomy
necessitated by his adenocarcinoma of the prostate.  He
testified at the December 1992 hearing on appeal that his
prostate cancer was etiologically related to his
service-connected prostatitis.  The Board observes that
service connection for adenocarcinoma of the prostate
secondary to the veteran's service-connected chronic
prostatitis was denied by a July 1988 Board decision.  Given
this fact, the veteran's testimony can reasonably be
construed as a request to reopen his claim of entitlement to
service connection for adenocarcinoma of the prostate
secondary to his service-connected chronic prostatitis.  The
issue of whether new and material evidence has been submitted
to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection has
neither been developed nor certified for review on appeal.
Any determination as to that issue would clearly and
significantly impact upon the ultimate resolution of the
certified issues.  In light of this fact, the Board finds
that the issue of service connection for adenocarcinoma of
the prostate is inextricably intertwined with the certified
issues of service connection for urinary incontinence and
impotence.  Therefore, I conclude that the question of
whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen the veteran's claim of entitlement to service
connection for adenocarcinoma of the prostate must be
formally adjudicated prior to appellate consideration of the
instant appeal.  See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 180
(1991).  Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following
action:

The RO should formally adjudicate whether
new and material evidence has been
submitted to reopen the veteran's claim of
entitlement to service connection for
adenocarcinoma of the prostate secondary to
his service-connected chronic prostatitis.

When the requested action has been completed, and if his claim
continues to be denied, the veteran should be afforded a
reasonable period of time in which to respond to a supplemental
statement of the case.  Thereafter, subject to current appellate
procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further
appellate consideration if appropriate.  The veteran need not
take any action unless he is further informed.  The purpose of
this REMAND is to allow for due process of law.  No inference
should be drawn from it regarding the final disposition of the
veteran's claim.

          JEFFREY J. MARTIN
          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 is appealable to the Court.  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).