BVA9503115 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 465     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for a
postoperative callus on the left foot.

2.  Entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for
pension purposes.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:  Texas Veterans Commission

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

B. Anderson, Counsel

REMAND

The appellant had active duty from February 1969 to August 1970.

This appeal arises from a June 1991 rating decision of the
Houston, Texas, regional office (RO).  In that decision, a
noncompensable rating for the appellant's postoperative callus of
the left foot was continued and entitlement to a permanent and
total disability rating for pension purposes was denied.

The record shows that the appellant failed to report for
disability evaluation examinations by the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) scheduled in June 1991 and November 1992, and failed
to report for the hearing he requested which was scheduled to
take place in August 1992.  However, in a statement in support of
claim dated in September 1992, the appellant reported that he
would be paroled in "about 2 months," and indicated his
willingness to report for a compensation and pension examination.
He made no mention of a personal hearing.

In a statement in support of claim for education benefits dated
in May 1988, the appellant acknowledged that he had been "strung
out on drugs," apparently from the 1970's to 1986.  The last
reports of VA hospitalization of the appellant in 1991 note a
history of mixed substance abuse and a short-term goal of
maintaining sobriety.  Neither the statement nor supplemental
statement of the case (SSOC) contains citation to the prohibition
of benefits for disability due to abuse of alcohol or drugs.

To ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the claimant in
developing the facts pertinent to the claims and to ensure full
compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to
the RO for the following development:

1.  The appellant should be afforded a VA
compensation and pension examination to
determine the current extent of the
service-connected postoperative callus of
the left foot as well as the nature and
extent of all other disabilities.  The
claims folder should be made available to
the examiner for review before the
examination.  The examiner should obtain a
detailed employment history and, to the
extent possible, make an assessment of the
appellant's day-to-day functioning in the
light of all disabilities apart from
alcoholism or drug abuse, if present.

2.  The RO should schedule a hearing for
the appellant unless, upon clarification
with the veteran and his representative,
the RO determines that the veteran no
longer desires a hearing.

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 SSOC, to include citation to the
prohibition of benefits for disability due to misconduct.  They
should be given the applicable opportunity to reply.  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 so notified.

          CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM
          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 action has been taken in
accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).