BVA9502574 
DOCKET NO.  92-19 677     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg,
Florida

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased rating for esophoria with esotropia
and diplopia, currently evaluated as noncompensable.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Heather J. Harner, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from July 1943 to October 1945.  He
was a prisoner of war of the German government from April 1944 to
April 1945.

When the veteran filed his claim for a compensable rating, he
contended his service-connected eye disorder was more disabling
than is reflected by a noncompensable disability rating.  He
averred that he was incapacitated without his corrective prism
lenses.  He averred that even with the lenses his depth
perception was affected, which impacted upon his ability to drive
and made walking up and down stairs difficult.  He also claimed
that the prism glasses were extremely heavy.  In addition, the
veteran's representative requested that the veteran be evaluated
on an extraschedular basis on the grounds that the veteran's
service-connected disabilities present marked interference with
employment so as to render impractical the application of the
regular rating standards.

Since these contentions were articulated, the veteran apparently
underwent surgery by a private physician to correct his focusing
disorder.  Assuming the operation was completely successful, the
veteran would not require the prism glasses to aid his vision
anymore.

This case was before the Board in June 1994, at which time it was
remanded for evidentiary development.  The veteran was to furnish
a listing of all providers of medical treatment for his eye
disorder(s) since May 1992 and to submit evidence of marked
interference with employment.  The Regional Office (RO) was to
arrange for the veteran to be scheduled for a Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) ophthalmological examination.  The veteran
did not respond to the request for a listing of his treatment
providers.  He was scheduled for a VA examination.  There is a
notation in the file that he requested a one-year postponement of
the claim (during a convalescent period following eye surgery--to
permit the eye to stabilize).  On the request for examination,
there is a handwritten notation, "vet withdraw (postponed claim
for 1 year)."

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

1.  To avoid further delay in the
adjudication of the veteran's claim, he
should be contacted expeditiously to
determine whether his intent is to proceed
with it or to withdraw it.  If he indicates
he prefers to withdraw the claim, he should
be advised that such withdrawal must be in
writing.

2.  If the veteran desires to proceed with
his claim, the RO must fully complete the
following development:

*         The veteran should be asked to provide
the names
      and addresses of all medical sources,
including both VA medical care providers
and private physicians, of treatment
(including the recent operation) for his
service-connected eye disorders since May
1992.  After securing the appropriate
releases, the RO should obtain records of
all such treatment for inclusion in the
veteran's claims file.

*         The veteran and his representative should
be invited to submit evidence that the
service-connected eye disorder causes
marked interference with employment.  The
RO should assist the veteran in
developing this matter, to include a
social and industrial survey, if deemed
necessary to corroborate the evidence
submitted.

*         The veteran should be scheduled for a VA
ophthalmologic examination to evaluate
his functional visual acuity and the
extent of his visual field loss.  All
indicated tests, including the Goldmann
bowl perimeter test, should be performed
in accordance with Chapter 3, Section 1,
of the Physician's Guide for Disability
Evaluation Examinations.  The examiner
should specifically comment on the extent
of the veteran's diplopia.  The claims
folder should be made available to, and
reviewed by, the examiner before the
examination.  In this regard, the veteran
should be specifically informed of the
provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b).

3.  After the development requested above
is  completed to the extent possible, the
RO should again review the record.  If the
benefit sought remains denied, the
appellant and his representative should be
furnished a supplemental statement of the
case and given the opportunity to respond.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The purpose of this REMAND is to assist the veteran in
the development of his claim and to meet due process
considerations.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the
ultimate outcome of this case.  The appellant need take no action
unless otherwise notified.

          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).