BVA9500630 
DOCKET NO.  93-05 210     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington,
West Virginia

THE ISSUES

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim for service connection for a hearing loss
disability.

2.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim for service connection for hyperopia.

3.  Entitlement to service connection for cataracts.

4.  Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma.

REPRESENTATION

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

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from December 1942 to January 1946.

Service connection had previously been denied for hyperopia.
However, service connection for glaucoma and cataracts had not
been adjudicated de novo.  The Board concludes that glaucoma and
cataracts are separate disabilities, and that the finality of the
denial of service connection for hyperopia does not attach to the
new claim.

Service connection had previously been denied for a hearing loss
disability, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals entered a decision
in July 1980.  Since that determination, a regulation was
promulgated and subsequently amended.  That regulation defined
hearing loss disability for VA purposes.  38 C.F.R. § 3.385
(1993).  It is not clear whether the regional office considered
the regulation to be the functional equivalent of new and
material evidence.

To ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case
is REMANDED to the regional office (RO) for the following
development:

1.  The regional office should determine
whether 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 is the functional
equivalent of new and material evidence
warranting the reopening of the claim for
service connection for hearing loss
disability.  See Akins v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 228 (1991); Jensen v. Brown, 7
Vet.App. 27 (1994).

2.  The regional office should recognize
that the issue of entitlement to service
connection for glaucoma and cataracts is a
new claim and not subject to finality.

3.  The regional office should review the
evidence that was associated with the claim
file after the certification of appeal.

4.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should again review the record.  If
any benefit sought on appeal, for which a
notice of disagreement has been filed,
remains denied, the appellant and
representative, if any, should be furnished
a supplemental statement of the case and
given the opportunity to respond thereto.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome
of this case.  The appellant need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          H. N. SCHWARTZ
          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.
          (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

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).