BVA9500737 
DOCKET NO.  93-03 170     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for an abdominal condition,
claimed as a stomach or intestinal tumor.

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of removal of a
papilloma of the right forearm.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. B. Wirt, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from May 1945 to December 1946.

This appeal arises from a October 1991 rating decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Petersburg, Florida,
Regional Office (RO), which denied the veteran entitlement to
service connection for an abdominal condition, claimed as a
stomach or intestinal tumor as well as for postoperative
residuals of a papilloma of the right forearm.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) notes that the veteran has
raised the issue of entitlement to service connection for
bilateral lower extremity skin ulcers on a radiation basis.  This
issue is referred to the RO for any appropriate action.

REMAND

The veteran contends that he was exposed to ionizing radiation in
service and that this exposure has caused him to develop an
abdominal condition, which he claims is a stomach or intestinal
tumor.  The claim for service connection for residuals of removal
of a papilloma of the right forearm is likewise based on exposure
to ionizing radiation.  The veteran served with the occupational
forces in Japan.  From November 22-25, 1945 he was disembarked
from his ship in Nagasaki.  He apparently also served in other
areas of Japan, and his service separation report shows that he
spent 11 months in the Pacific Theater.

His service medical records are negative for any evidence of
treatment for or findings or diagnosis of an abdominal condition
of any kind, and are likewise negative for a papilloma of the
right forearm.  He was diagnosed at a VA examination in January
1980 as having a partially reducible umbilical hernia, from which
he still suffers.  He has not been diagnosed as having any kind
of abdominal tumor or other mass.  Private clinical records
reveal that in August 1987 a fibroepithelial papilloma was
excised from the proximal ulna of the right forearm.

During the pendency of this appeal, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit determined that § 5 of the
Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards
Act, Pub. L. No. 98-542, 98 Stat. 2725, 2727-29 (1984), did not
preclude, or authorize the VA to preclude, a claimant from
proving that he or she has a disability as a result of exposure
to ionizing radiation in service under the provisions of
38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1993),
despite the fact that the claimed disability is not a potentially
radiogenic disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(b) (now § 3.311)
1993.  Combee v. Brown, No. 93-7107, 1994 WL 470364 (Fed. Cir.
Sept. 1, 1994), reversing in part Combee v. Principi 4 Vet.App.
78 (1993).  In such cases, a claimant must be given an
opportunity to prove that his exposure to ionizing radiation
during service actually caused the disability or disabilities for
which he or she is claiming service connection, and that service
connection is therefore warranted under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131
(West 1991), and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

In this case, the denial was predicated upon the fact that the
conditions for which service connection was sought were not
radiogenic conditions under 38 C.F.R. § 3.311.  Therefore, this
radiation claim must be readjudicated pursuant to Combee.
Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should readjudicate the issue of
service connection for an abdominal
condition, claimed as a stomach or
intestinal tumor, and the issue of service
connection for residuals of removal of a
papilloma of the right forearm, pursuant to
Combee v. Brown.  If the decision remains
adverse to the veteran, notification of the
denial via a statement of the case should
include the holding in Combee.  He should
be specifically informed that claimants now
have the opportunity to prove causation on
a radiation basis for non-radiogenic
conditions.

In taking this action, the Board intimates no opinion as to the
final outcome of this case.  No action is required of the veteran
until he receives further notice from the RO.

          BRUCE E. HYMAN
          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).