BVA9500885 
DOCKET NO.  93-06 547     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta,
Georgia

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to waiver of recovery of the loan guaranty
indebtedness.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J.W. Engle, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from a decision in March 1992 by the Committee
on Waivers and Compromises of the Atlanta, Georgia, Department of
Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO).

REMAND

In December 1991 the appellant requested waiver of recovery of
the loan guaranty indebtedness.  Our review of the record reveals
that in March 1992 the Committee on Waivers and Compromises found
the appellant to be free of fraud, misrepresentation and bad
faith.  It was further noted that his actions at the time of
default contributed to the creation of the indebtedness and that
collection of the loan guaranty indebtedness would not be
contrary to the principles of equity and good conscience.

In correspondence received by VARO in August 1992, the appellant
requested a hearing before a traveling section of the Board.
However, in response to the appellant's hearing request, he was
scheduled for a personal hearing before the Committee on Waivers
and Compromises.  He apparently was unable to attend the
scheduled hearing and requested that it be rescheduled.  The
hearing was rescheduled four additional times in October and
November 1992 with the appellant either requesting that it be
rescheduled or failing to appear.

In December 1992 the Statement of the Case was issued.  It was
noted that the appellant's request for waiver of recovery of the
loan guaranty indebtedness remained denied.  In the "Reasons for
Decision" section it was noted that the appellant's actions were
considered to be representative of bad faith and therefore waiver
of recovery of the loan guaranty indebtedness was barred by law.
The appellant was provided a VA Form 9 with his copy of the
Statement of the Case in December 1992, but there is no VA Form 9
or equivalent document within the file to serve as the
Substantive Appeal.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 (1993).

In addition, the Board notes that in October 1992 the appellant
requested representation with regard to his request for waiver of
the loan guaranty indebtedness.  There is no indication within
the loan guaranty file as to whether or not representation was
ever obtained.

In view of the above, the Board concludes that additional
development is necessary prior to appellate consideration of this
claim.  Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to VARO for the
following action:

1.  VARO should determine whether or not a
separate claims folder exists with respect
to this appellant and if so, associate the
claims folder with the loan guaranty file.

2.  The appellant should be requested to
clarify whether or not he desires
representation and if so, he should be
provided all appropriate information
regarding representation.  He should
further be requested to specify whether or
not he seeks a hearing before a traveling
section of the Board.

3.  The Committee on Waivers and
Compromises should clarify the basis for
their decision in light of the initial
decision rendered in March 1992 which was
based upon equity and good conscience and
the subsequent decision in December 1992,
reflected in the Statement of the Case
which indicated that the appellant was
found to have acted in bad faith.  The
Committee's attention is directed to the
fact that only those actions or lack of
action by the appellant, contemporaneous
with the default and subsequent foreclosure
are for consideration in reaching this
decision.

4.  After completion of the above, VARO
should determine if the appellant has filed
a timely Substantive Appeal necessary to
confer jurisdiction of his claim for waiver
of the loan guaranty indebtedness to the
Board.

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.

          KENNETH R. ANDREWS, JR.
          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).