BVA9503346 
DOCKET NO.  93-10 226     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville,
Tennessee

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for a sinus disorder.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disorder,
to include arthritis.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for arthritis of the left
shoulder.

4.  Entitlement to service connection for weakened strength in
the left arm.

5.  Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder.

6.  Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual
unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.

REPRESENTATION

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

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The veteran

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

John D. Nachmann, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from February 1949 to
January 1950 and from September 1950 to June 1952.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from rating decisions of May and July 1992 by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Nashville, Tennessee,
Regional Office (RO).

REMAND

The veteran has submitted well-grounded claims within the meaning
of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a).  See Murphy v. Derwinski,
1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55
(1990).  That is, the Board finds that he has submitted claims
which are plausible.  The VA therefore has a duty to assist the
veteran in developing facts pertinent to his claims.  See Littke
v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 91-92 (1990).

The veteran maintains that the disabilities for which he is
seeking service connection are proximately due to or the result
of his current service-connected disabilities from residuals of
gunshot wounds of the face, Muscle Group XVII and Muscle Group
III.  The report of a January 1993 examination by John R. Blake,
Jr., M.D., reveals that the veteran had a chronic orthopedic
deformity of the right lower extremity that was probably due to a
peroneal injury with chronic foot drop, secondary to a gunshot
wound sustained in the 1950's; chronic left arm weakness due to
an injury of the shoulder in the 1950's; and degenerative disc
disease by history.  In addition, a March 1991 letter from Mary
Pat Collins, M.D., indicates that the veteran had conjunctivitis
of the right eye socket and the veterans has testified that VA
physicians have suggested that he has a sinus condition related
to his service connected facial wounds.

The Board notes that the veteran has not been provided with a
recent VA examination, even though the duty to assist requires
the conduction of a thorough and contemporaneous medical
examination.  See Green v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991).
Further, the Board notes that the veteran's treatment records
from the Knoxville, Tennessee, VA outpatient treatment clinic,
which could contain information that is relevant to the issues on
appeal, have not been associated with the claims file.

Therefore, in order to give the veteran every consideration with
respect to the present appeal, it is the Board's opinion that
further development of the case is warranted.  Accordingly, this
case is REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  The RO should contact the Knoxville,
Tennessee, VA outpatient treatment clinic
and obtain all medical records pertaining
to the veteran.  All records obtained
should be associated with the veteran's
claims file.

2.  After the above development has been
completed, the veteran should be afforded a
VA examination(s) to determine the
etiology, nature, and severity of the
claimed sinus, right leg (including
arthritis), left shoulder (arthritis), left
arm and back disorders for which he is
seeking service connection secondary to his
service-connected disabilities.  Any
special examinations indicated should be
conducted.  The examiner(s) should be asked
to render an opinion as to the degree of
probability, if any, that any claimed
disorder found to be present is secondary
to the veteran's service-connected
residuals of gunshot wounds.  The claims
file must be made available to the
examiner(s) prior to and during the
examination for a complete study of the
case.

3.  After completion of the above actions,
the RO should again review the claims to
include the issue of entitlement to a total
disability rating based on individual
unemployability due to service-connected
disabilities.

If any of the determinations remain adverse to the veteran, the
case should be returned to the Board after compliance with the
provisions for processing appeals, including the issuance of a
supplemental statement of the case and provision of the
applicable time period for response thereto.  The purpose of this
REMAND is to obtain additional development, and the Board does
not intimate any opinion as to the merits of the case, either
favorable or unfavorable, at this time.  No action is required of
the veteran until he is notified.

          CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM
          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).