BVA9500879 
DOCKET NO.  93-02 176     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke,
Virginia

THE ISSUE

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

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple
Heart

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Lori R. Bucci, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from May 1970 to July 1973.  He
was born in May 1950.

This appeal arises from a rating decision in April 1992 by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Roanoke, Virginia.

VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts
pertinent to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).  In
this case, G. W. Fralin, M.D., a private physician, who treated
the veteran primarily for diabetes mellitus from January 1991 to
January 1992, noted that in October 1991, the veteran's liver
function studies were abnormal.  Dr. Fralin referred the veteran
to a hepatologist for evaluation, but instead the veteran went to
a Kaiser clinic.  Based on a physical examination in January
1992, Dr. Fralin diagnosed the veteran as having both diabetes
and hepatitis by history.  The record, however, does not contain
any treatment records from the Kaiser Clinic.

At an October 1992 VA compensation examination, the veteran’s
liver function studies were again abnormal.  The diagnoses
included elevated liver function studies most likely secondary to
alcoholic hepatitis.  However, it was noted that this could not
be an absolute diagnosis without further studies.  According to
the evidence currently of record, appropriate further studies
were never performed, and the RO never adjudicated the rating, if
any, warranted by the disabling impact of the veteran’s
hepatitis.  Further development is therefore warranted because
"[b]efore a total and permanent disability rating can be
awarded, an evaluation must be performed under the Schedule for
Rating Disabilities to determine the percentage of impairment
caused by each disability."  Roberts v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App.
387, 390 (1992).

Finally, the Board further notes that in a November 1992 rating
decision confirming and continuing the denial of pension
benefits, the RO noted that the veteran’s alcohol abuse was
disabling due to his willful misconduct.  Significantly, however,
the statement of the case issued did not inform the veteran of
either the statutes or the regulations governing alcohol abuse
and willful misconduct.  Accordingly, further development is
required.

Therefore, to ensure that VA has met its duty to assist the
appellant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim, the
case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development:

1.  The RO should ask the veteran to
provide the names and addresses of all
medical care providers, VA and non-VA, who
treated the veteran for hepatitis since
January 1991.  After securing any necessary
releases, the RO should obtain these
records.  This request specifically
includes, but is not limited to, securing
all records from the Kaiser Clinic.

2.  The veteran should be afforded a VA
compensation  examination to determine the
nature and extent of the veteran's
hepatitis, if now present, and express an
opinion as to the etiological relationship,
if any, between the hepatitis and alcohol
abuse.  The claims folder should be made
available to the examiner for review before
the examination.  This examination should
be conducted in accordance with the VA
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations.

The RO should then review the evidence and determine whether the
veteran's claim for service connection for entitlement to a
permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes may
now be granted.  If the decision remains adverse to the veteran,
he and his representative should be provided with an appropriate
Supplemental Statement of the Case, which includes all pertinent
laws and regulations, as well as an opportunity to respond
thereto.  The case should then be returned to the Board of
Veterans' Appeals for further appellate consideration.

The purposes of this REMAND are to assist the veteran in the
development of his claim and to procure clarifying medical data.
By this REMAND the Board intimates no opinion, legal or factual,
as to the ultimate disposition of the appeal.  No action is
required of the veteran until he receives further notice.

          DEREK R. BROWN
          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) (1994).