BVA9507174 
DOCKET NO.  77-39 143     )       DATE
          )
          RECONSIDERATION )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan,
Puerto Rico

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.

(The issue of whether new and material evidence has been
presented to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection
for a psychiatric disability is the subject of a separate
appellate decision).

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Robert A. Leaf, Counsel

REMAND

The Board of Veterans' Appeals entered a decision in this case in
May 1978 denying entitlement to service connection for
hypertension.  Reconsideration of that decision has been ordered
by the authority granted to the Chairman in 38 U.S.C.A. § 7103
(West 1991), and the case is now before an expanded
Reconsideration Panel of the Board.  This remand is a preliminary
action which is taken prior to the Board's ultimate determination
in this case.  The eventual decision by the Reconsideration Panel
replaces the decision of May 1978 and will be the final decision
of the Board.

The veteran had active duty from October 1965 to October 1967.
He asserts that he was treated for hypertension while in service
and subsequent to service at Mimiya Hospital during March and
April 1968.  Service medical records disclose that his blood
pressure was recorded as 140/90 in October 1965 at entrance on
active duty.  No cardiovascular abnormalities were noted during
service, and blood pressure was recorded as 124/68 on an
examination in September 1967 for service separation.  A March
1968 medical certificate of the former Veterans Administration,
now Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) indicates that blood
pressure was 150/100.  During VA hospitalization in April and May
1968, blood pressure was recorded as 160/100, and a systolic
murmur was identified; the diagnosis was arterial hypertension.
A VA examination in June 1968 showed that blood pressure was
156/90, and an electrocardiographic tracing revealed borderline
changes for left ventricular hypertrophy.  Subsequent
examinations confirmed the diagnosis of hypertension.

The veteran maintains that there are additional service medical
records which have not been considered.  To ensure that VA has
met its duty to assist the appellant in developing the facts
pertinent to the claim, the case is REMANDED to the regional
office (RO) for the following development:

1.  The RO should make another attempt to
secure any additional service medical
records through official channels.

2.  The RO should obtain the names and
addresses of any medical care providers who
may have treated the veteran for
hypertension prior to service, through
October 1965.  As well, any records of
treatment for hypertension during the first
postservice year, from October 1967 to
October 1968, identified by the veteran,
should be obtained.  Of particular interest
are records of treatment reportedly
provided at the Mimiya Hospital in March
and April 1968.

3.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should again review the record.  If
the benefit sought on appeal 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 until notified.

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

          D. C. SPICKLER  BRUCE E. HYMAN

          N. R. ROBIN

NANCY I. PHILLIPS                                   JOHN E.
ORMOND

SAMUEL W. WARNER

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).