BVA9503815 
DOCKET NO.  93-10 279     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUES

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

Entitlement to service connection for myopia.

Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for the
residuals of a head injury.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Michele M. Florack, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from March 1970 to March 1972.

In a May 1992 statement from the veteran, he claims an increased
rating for residuals of a head injury on the basis that it is
manifested by headaches and dizziness.  The Regional Office (RO)
had previously denied service connection for headaches and
dizziness by a rating decision in December 1988, which was not
appealed and is final.  While the grant of service connection for
residuals of a head injury did not specify the nature of the
residuals, they appear to have been limited to the resulting scar.
In this context, the claim for increase encompasses an attempt to
reopen a claim for service connection for residuals of a head
injury consisting of headaches and dizziness.  Such claim is
inextricably intertwined with the increased rating issue before us
and must be adjudicated concurrently with that claim.

In a January 1993 statement from the veteran, he requested that a
claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder,
which was denied by a Board decision in March 1992, be reopened.
That issue is referred to the RO  for appropriate action.

The issues of entitlement to service connection for myopia and
whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a
claim for service connection for hepatitis are held in abeyance
pending the development ordered below.

REMAND

The veteran's claim for increase encompasses an attempt to reopen
claims for service connection for headaches and dizziness.  That
matter has not been addressed by the RO, but is inextricably
intertwined with the claim for increase.  This creates a due
process deficiency which must be resolved prior to further
appellate consideration.  He also claims the residual scar area
is tender and painful.  This assertion should have triggered an
examination request.  Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO
for the following:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and ask
him to provide the names, dates, and
locations of all sources of treatment he
received for residuals of a head injury since
May 1989.  The records of all such treatment
should be obtained and associated with the
veteran's claims file.

2.  The RO should schedule the veteran for a
VA rating examination to ascertain the nature
and current severity of any residuals of a
head injury the veteran sustained in service.
The examination should be conducted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of
the Physician's Guide for Disability
Evaluation Examinations.  The examiner should
be provided the claims file for review prior
to the examination.  The examiner should
describe the residual scar in detail,
specifically noting any disfiguring effects,
pain, or tenderness on objective
demonstration, and also state specifically
whether there are any other residuals of the
head injury in service and, if so, the nature
and severity of such residuals.  Any tests or
studies needed for a full assessment should
be done.  The examiner should provide the
rationale for any opinion given.

When the above-requested development is completed, the case
should again be reviewed by the RO.  The RO should specifically
adjudicate the veteran's attempt to reopen claims for service
connection for headaches and dizziness.  The veteran should be
advised of the decisions on all issues and, if the determinations
on the claims for service connection for headaches and dizziness
are adverse, given the opportunity to file a notice of
disagreement.  The RO should issue a supplemental

statement of the case addressing all issues that remain denied.
After the veteran and his representative have had an adequate
opportunity to respond, the case should be returned to the Board
for further appellate review.

          GEORGE R. SENYK
          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).