BVA9500316 
DOCKET NO.  93-00 715     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Columbia, South
Carolina

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for thrombophlebitis.

2.  Entitlement to an increased evaluation for frozen feet or
trench foot, currently rated as 10 percent disabling.

3.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
bilateral defective hearing.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESSES AT HEARINGS ON APPEAL

Appellant and his son
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. W. Loeb, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty during World War II.  This case
was remanded by letter by the Board of Veterans' Appeals(Board)
in March 1993 to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional
Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina, for additional
development.

The veteran indicated both at his personal hearing before the
Board in April 1994 and in an August 1994 letter that he believes
that he should be service-connected for trench foot, rather than
for frozen feet.  The Board notes that his service-connected foot
disorder is described as both trench foot and frozen feet, which
means that he can receive compensation for residuals of either or
both conditions.

REMAND

The veteran complained in his April 1994 Board hearing that a VA
audiometric examination in March 1991 was inadequate because he
had difficulty with the examiner.  The Board notes that there is
no subsequent VA audiometric examination report on file and that
private audiometric results in May 1992 are dissimilar in some
respects with the March 1991 VA results.  Additionally, the
veteran has noted, including in an August 1994 letter, that
medical records for the 1970s and 1980s that used to be in his
file were lost when the VA relocated to new offices in
Greenville, South Carolina.  Because further development is
necessary prior to final disposition of this case, the case is
REMANDED to the RO for the following actions:

1.  The veteran should be permitted to
submit any additional evidence that is
pertinent to any of the issues on appeal.
He should also be asked to provide the
names, addresses and approximate dates of
treatment of all health care providers,
including those from the 1970s and 1980s
whose records were formerly on file, who
have treated him for thrombophlebitis since
service and for hearing loss and/or trench
foot-frozen feet in recent years.  He
should be asked to fill out any necessary
consent forms for the release of his
private medical records.  The RO should
then obtain copies of all indicated records
which are not already on file and associate
them with the claims folder.

2.  The veteran should be afforded special
audiometric and vascular examinations, in
accordance with the VA Physician's Guide
for Disability Evaluation Examinations, to
determine the current severity of his
defective hearing, trench foot or frozen
feet disorder, and thrombophlebitis.  All
necessary tests and studies should be
conducted, and all findings should be
reported in detail.  The vascular
specialist should give an opinion as to
whether it is as least as likely as not
that the veteran's thrombophlebitis is
related to his service-connected trench
foot or frozen feet.  The rationale for all
opinions expressed should be fully
explained.  The claims folder must be made
available to each examiner for review
before examination of the veteran.

3.  Thereafter, the issues on appeal should
be readjudicated by the RO.

After the above actions have been completed, if any of the issues
remain denied, a supplemental statement of the case should be
issued to the veteran and his representative and an opportunity
should then be afforded the veteran and his representative for a
response.  The case should then be returned to the Board, if
otherwise in order.  The veteran need take no action until
otherwise notified.

          ROBERT E. SULLIVAN
          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).