BVA9506209 
DOCKET NO.  93-13 113     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans,
Louisiana

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for basal cell carcinomas of
left post-auricular area and naso-labial area with postoperative
residuals of multiple excisions of basal cell carcinomas; and
multiple actinic keratosis of the face, arms, chest and back,
currently evaluated 10 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

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

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

A. D. Jackson, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from January 1951 until December
1981.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on
appeal from a rating decision from the New Orleans, Louisiana,
Regional Office (RO).  The rating decision dated in December
1992, increased from zero percent to ten percent the evaluation
for basal cell carcinomas of left post-auricular area and
naso-labial area with postoperative residuals of multiple
excisions of basal cell carcinomas; and multiple actinic
keratosis of the face, arms, chest and back.  The veteran
continues to dispute the adequacy of the assigned rating.

The veteran contends that he should be granted a higher rating
for his skin disorder which is manifested by disability inclusive
of discoloration and disfigurement.  He claims that the RO did
not take into account or properly weigh the evidence of record,
including Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinical evidence
and statements submitted in support of the claim.

After review of the record, further development is found to be
warranted.  In his VA-form 9, dated in May 1993, the veteran
referred to cosmetic surgery that was performed by a plastic
surgeon, B.J. O'Neal, in 1990 and 1991.  These records are of
likely relevance to a proper adjudication of this claim.

Subsequent to a July 1992 VA examination, VA outpatient records
dated in September 1992 reveal that the veteran underwent two or
three weeks previously a coronal brow lift excision with excision
of facial lesions, and an upper bleph.  In light of the his
recent surgery the Board finds that a VA dermatological
examination would be appropriate, in order to take into
consideration the postoperative results of his surgeries.

To ensure that the VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in
developing the facts pertinent to the claim and to ensure full
compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following development:
1.  The RO should obtain, through
appropriate procedures, the private
clinical records of Dr. B.J. O'Neal
referred to in the veteran's May 1993
correspondence.  These records should be
associated with the claims file.

2.  VA outpatient treatment records
developed since 1992 should also be
associated with the claims file for review.

3.  The veteran should again undergo a
dermatology examination for rating purposes
to determine the nature and extent of the
severity of his service connected skin
disorder.  The examiner should report all
pertinent findings consistent with the
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations.  Specific pathology related
to the service connected disorder should be
identified, and color photographs should be
included.  The claims folder should be
reviewed by the examiner prior to
conducting the examination.

3.  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 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.  While regretting the delay involved in remanding this
case, it is felt that proceeding with a decision on the merits at
this time would not withstand Court scrutiny.

          JEFF 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 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).