BVA9501514 
DOCKET NO.  92-53 773     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Reno, Nevada

THE ISSUE

Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a
claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Joseph P. Gervasio, Jr., Counsel
INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from November 1947 to November
1949, and from August 1950 to November 1951.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from
a November 1990 decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Regional Office (RO), which, finding that new and material
evidence had not been submitted, denied the veteran's application
to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for
residuals of dental trauma.  In an April 6, 1993 decision the
Board denied the requested benefit.  The veteran then appealed to
the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court).

In a September 30, 1994 memorandum decision (with judgment
entered on October 18, 1994), the Court vacated the April 1993
Board decision, and the case was remanded to the Board for
further action.

In November 1994 the Board asked the veteran and his
representative whether they wanted to submit additional argument.
In December 1994 the Board received a written response from the
veteran, and in January 1995 from his representative.

REMAND

Copies of the September 1994 Court decision and the October 1994
judgment have been placed in the veteran's claims file.  The
Court has held that further evidentiary development and
adjudicative action is required.  Accordingly, the case is
REMANDED to the RO for the following actions:

1.  The RO should ask National Personnel
Records Center to search for, and provide,
any additional service medical and dental
records concerning the veteran.

2.  Thereafter, the RO should have the
veteran undergo a VA dental examination to
determine the nature and etiology of his
current dental conditions, including
whether there are any dental conditions
associated with combat wounds or other
service trauma.  The veteran's claims
folder must be provided to and thoroughly
reviewed by the examiner.  The examiner
should identify all missing and defective
teeth, and other dental conditions; and
current findings should be correlated with
dental and medical findings in the service
and post-service records.  The examiner
should then provide a detailed
medical/dental opinion on the etiology of
all current dental conditions, and should
clearly explain whether or not each such
dental condition is due to the veteran's
combat wounds (including shrapnel wounds of
the face) or other service trauma.  (The RO
should assure that the contents of the
examination are in compliance with the
Court decision in this case.)

3.  Thereafter, the RO should review the
question of whether new and material
evidence has been submitted to reopen the
previously denied claim for service
connection for residuals of dental trauma;
if the claim is reopened by such evidence,
it should be reviewed on a de novo basis.
Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140 (1991).

If the RO denies the requested benefit, it should issue a
supplemental statement of the case to the veteran and his
representative, and they should be given an opportunity to
respond.  Then the case should be returned to the Board.

          L. W. TOBIN
          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).