BVA9503302 
DOCKET NO.  93-02 254     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New
York

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to a determination of competency for Department of
Veterans Affairs purposes.

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Robert B. Swanson, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from August 1977 to March 1978.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a November 1991 rating decision by the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New
York.

REMAND

The veteran contends that he should be considered competent for
VA purposes.  The RO granted service connection for schizophrenia
in January 1979.  The RO further found that the veteran was
incompetent for VA purposes in May 1982 and assigned a total
rating for the disability, effective from August 1982.

The veteran contends that he is competent and capable of handling
his own affairs.  In support of his contention, he asserts that
he has been able to maintain an apartment, maintain his person
hygiene, and cook for himself.

In March 1991, the veteran submitted a letter from a VA
psychiatrist.  In the letter, the psychiatrist indicated that the
veteran had sufficient funds to cover his rent, food, and social
activities, provided he stopped using illicit drugs and complied
with his psychiatric treatment.

In June 1991, the RO conducted a field examination.  The field
examiner interviewed both the veteran and his father who was also
the veteran's fiduciary.  The veteran's father indicated that he
had been forced to place the veteran on a weekly allowance
because the veteran had been purchasing illicit drugs.  In
response to the allowance, the veteran's father stated that the
veteran sold various possessions in order to purchase illicit
drugs.  The veteran stated that he was still purchasing illicit
drugs, although he no longer gave away his money to unscrupulous
individuals.  The examiner concluded that the veteran was
incompetent and unable to handle his funds prudently and without
limitation based upon his past history and his current
psychological state.

In August 1991, the veteran testified at a hearing that was held
at the RO.  He stated that he was capable of handling his own
affairs.  He stated that he was no longer taking illicit drugs,
and planned on working and attending college.

In February 1992, the veteran's father reported that the veteran
was incapable of managing his own affairs, including the
disbursement of funds.  He indicated that the veteran spent his
money on illicit drugs.  In addition, he stated that the veteran
sold items, such as his food, clothing, and furniture belonging
to his landlady, to purchase illicit drugs.

In February 1992, the veteran testified at a hearing that was
held at the RO.  He stated that he was not sure whether he should
handle his own funds because he may possibly spend a lot of money
on illicit drugs, but felt that someone other than his parents
should be his fiduciary.  He indicated that he was receiving
counseling for substance abuse, although he had used illicit
drugs about one month prior to the hearing.

The record indicates that the veteran was hospitalized at a VA
medical facility in May 1992 for treatment of his psychiatric
disability.  A copy of the discharge summary is not associated
with the file.  There are no subsequent medical records on file
for the veteran.  The evidence on file does not permit a current
assessment of the veteran's mental status, in consideration of
the holding of the United States Court of Veterans Appeals
(Court) in Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377 (1994).  The Court
determined that an examination conducted approximately two years
before the Board decision was too remote to be contemporaneous.

It is also noted that in January 1992 the veteran indicated that
he desired representation by Disabled American Veterans at his
hearing.  There is no power of attorney on file for that
organization.  By letter in December 1994, the veteran was
advised of his right to have an authorized representative.  No
reply was received from the veteran.  It is not clear whether the
address utilized is the veteran's current address.

To ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs (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 regional office (RO)
for the following development:

1.  The RO should contact the custodian for
the veteran to determine the veteran's
current address.  Thereafter, the RO should
contact the veteran to determine whether he
desires representation; he should be given
the appropriate forms for designation of
such representative.

2.  The RO should obtain any records of
treatment of the veteran for his
psychiatric disorder since 1992.  These
records should be associated with the
claims folder.

2.  Thereafter, the veteran should be
afforded a psychiatric examination to
determine whether he is competent for VA
purposes.  In this regard, a field
examination should be conducted, to
determine the veteran's ability to manage
his funds.  The veteran's claims folder
should be made available to the examiner
for study in this case.

When this development has been completed, the claim should be
reviewed by the RO.  If any benefit sought on appeal is not
granted, the appellant and his representative, if one is appointed
by the veteran, should be given a supplemental statement of the
case with regard to the additional development and should also be
afforded an opportunity to respond.  The record should be returned
to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order.

No action by the appellant or his representative, if one is
designated, is required until further notice is received.

          V. L. JORDAN
          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).