BVA9503146 
DOCKET NO.  93-23 194     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee,
Oklahoma

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury
to the thoracic spine.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury
to the lumbar spine.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

A. K. Mulroy, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from July 1988 to March 1992.  In a
decision dated in August 1992, the Muskogee, Oklahoma, Regional
Office (hereinafter the RO) granted service connection for several
disabilities, but denied service connection for residuals of a
thoracic spine injury and residuals of a lumbar spine injury.  The
veteran has appealed the denials to the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter the Board).  The veteran is represented by the
American Legion.

The veteran contends that he injured his thoracic and lumbar spine
in a motor vehicle accident in November 1991, and has continued to
have problems since that time.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter the VA) has a duty
to assist in the development of the evidence pertinent to the
veteran's claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §
3.103 (1993).  The veteran alleges that problems with his thoracic
and lumbar spine stem from a motor vehicle accident in November
1991.  Service medical records show follow-up treatment of the
veteran, but indicate that the veteran was originally treated
after the accident at a private facility.  The only record from
the facility, identified as the University Medical Center of
Southern Nevada, is a copy of the Patient Discharge Instructions.
There are many records from that facility pertaining to a previous
period of hospitalization in June 1990, but not the November 1991
hospitalization.  The service follow-up treatment records revealed
that the veteran was complaining of headaches and of thoracic-
lumbar paraspinal pain.  The hospital treatment records from
November 1991 impact upon this appeal.  The Board concludes that
in order to accord the veteran every consideration, a remand is in
order to request these records.

Additionally, the Board notes that the RO denied service
connection for residuals of a lumbar spine injury, in part,
because no residuals were found on the VA examination in June
1992.  It is noted that the veteran only reported cervical and
thoracic pain, and that therefore, no examination, including x-
rays, of the lumbar spine was apparently made at that time.  At
least, the diagnoses reported did not reflect that the lumbar
spine was evaluated.

Accordingly, the case is being REMANDED for the following action:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran
through his representative and request a
release for the treatment records at the
University Medical Center of Southern
Nevada pertaining to treatment in November
1991.  The RO should then attempt to obtain
the records and associate them with the
file.

2.  The RO should contact the veteran
through his representative and request a
release for the treatment records from his
private chiropractor, Dr. Greg Owens,
pertaining to treatment immediately after
separation from service in 1991 and since
the veteran resumed treatment in December
1992.  The RO should then attempt to obtain
the records and associate them with the
file.

3.  The veteran should be afforded a VA
orthopedic evaluation in order to determine
the present nature and extent of his
thoracic and lumbar back disorders, if any.
The claims folder, including the additional
treatment records obtained pursuant to the
remand provisions above, should be made
available to the examiner prior to the
examination for review of the pertinent
medical history.  The examiner is requested
to offer an opinion as to the etiology of
the veteran's thoracic and lumbar
disorders, if any.

When the above development has been completed, the case should
again be reviewed by the originating agency.  If the decision
remains adverse to the veteran, he and his representative should
be furnished a supplemental statement of the case.  They should be
afforded a reasonable period to respond.  Thereafter, subject to
current appellate procedures, the case should be returned to the
Board for further appellate consideration, if appropriate.

The veteran need take no action until he is further informed.  The
purpose of this REMAND is to obtain clarifying information and no
inference should be drawn from it regarding the final disposition
of the claim.

          E. W. SEERY
          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).