BVA9501019 
DOCKET NO.  93-04 520     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUE

Whether the veteran's notice of disagreement with a February 1983
rating decision which denied service connection for paranoid
schizophrenia is timely.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

D. B. Weiss, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from May 1981 to June 1982.

The veteran's original claim for service connection for a mental
disorder was received in August 1982.  A January 1983 letter
advised him that as he had failed to report for a required
examination, his claim was disallowed, and notified him of his
appellate rights.  A February 1983 rating decision denied service
connection for paranoid schizophrenia on the basis that it
existed prior to enlistment and was not aggravated by active
duty.  In August 1991, the veteran again claimed service
connection for nervous problems.  He was advised by a September
1991 letter that the prior denial of the claim had become final
and that he should submit evidence not already considered in
order to reopen the claim.  The letter also advised him of his
appellate rights.

In February 1992, a letter from the veteran, which has been
deemed his notice of disagreement with the February 1983 rating
decision, was received.  A close reading of this letter, however,
indicates that the veteran is seeking to reopen the February 1983
rating decision.  In this letter, the veteran asserts that he did
not have paranoid schizophrenia prior to entrance into service,
and that service caused aggravation of whatever mental condition,
if any, which preexisted service.  At his personal hearing in
February 1993, he testified that after separation, he never
received notification to report for examination.  (transcript of
hearing at page 4.)

We note that at his separation medical examination in May 1982,
the veteran gave a history of having seen Lynn Siegel, a social
worker, from 1979 to 1981.  He also reported having been
privately hospitalized by Dr. Alan A. Guner at Highland Park
Hospital in Miami, Florida.  A May 1982 service hospitalization
record indicates that the Highland Park hospitalization was
reportedly from November 5th to 22nd, 1980, and that the
diagnosis then was borderline personality disorder.

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 obtain the names and
addresses of all medical care providers who
treated the veteran for the claimed
disorder prior to and since service.  After
securing the necessary release, the RO
should attempt to obtain these records, in
particular, the records of Lynn Siegel, Dr.
Alan A. Guner, and Highland Park Hospital
in Miami, Florida.  Any records associated
with the veteran's claim for Social
Security disability benefits should also be
obtained.

2.  Inasmuch as the claim to reopen the
February 1983 rating decision is deemed to
be "inextricably intertwined" with the
issue of timeliness of the notice of
disagreement with that decision, the RO
should take appropriate adjudicative
action, and provide the appellant and
representative notice of the determination
and the right to appeal.  If a timely
notice of disagreement is filed, the
appellant and representative should be
furnished with a statement of the case and
given time to respond thereto.

3.  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
supplemental statement of the case which
includes the provisions of 38 C.F.R.
§ 3.109(b), and given the opportunity to
respond thereto.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (Board), if in order.  The Board intimates no opinion as
to the ultimate outcome of this case.  The appellant need take no
action until otherwise notified.

          M. SABULSKY
          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).