BVA9500291 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 415     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland,
Oregon

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for idiopathic inflammatory
bowel disease.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Auer, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from June 1990 to September
1991.

This appeal arises from a September 1992 rating decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Portland, Oregon, Regional
Office (RO).  In that decision, service connection for idiopathic
inflammatory bowel disease was denied.

The veteran was examined by the VA in July 1992.  The assessment
was abdominal pain syndrome with diarrhea.  It was commented that
his symptoms might represent inflammatory bowel disease, but
could also represent irritable bowel disease.  He was referred to
a gastroenterologist for a specific diagnosis.  The veteran was
examined by the VA in early August 1992.  At that time, the
diagnosis was possible mild Crohn's disease.  The examiner stated
that he did not have access to the veteran's medical records and
could not assess the possibility of Crohn's disease without X-ray
studies or colonoscopy studies.  It does not appear that the
recommended studies were performed.

The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to his claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1993).
The Court of Veterans Appeals (Court)has held that fulfillment of
the VA's duty to assist the veteran includes providing him with a
thorough and contemporaneous medical examination.  Littke v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92 (1990).

Additionally, a review of the statement of the case, issued in
March 1991, shows that it does not contain a discussion regarding
the presumption of soundness, the rebuttal of the presumption of
soundness, or the effect on the VA of a line of duty
determination made by a service department.  See 38 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1111, 1113 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (m) (1993), and
Kinnaman v. Principi, 4 Vet.App. 20, 27 (1993).

The Board finds that the actions ordered below are
warranted even though the development will further delay
the entry of a final decision in this appeal.  Accordingly,
the claim is REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  The RO should obtain any available
treatment records from the VA hospitals or
medical centers where the veteran has
received treatment since August 1992.

2.  The RO should contact the veteran and
ask him to furnish the names and addresses
of all medical personnel and facilities
from whom he has received treatment for the
disability at issue since his discharge
from service.  After obtaining the
necessary authorization from the veteran,
the RO should obtain available records from
the named sources.

3.  A special VA examination by a
gastroenterologist should be arranged for
the veteran to determine the extent and
severity of any intestinal disorder and its
likely etiology.  The examination should be
conducted in accordance with the VA
Physician's Guide for Disability Evaluation
Examinations (1985).  The examiner should
set forth detailed findings and should
include a personal history, symptoms, all
physical findings, laboratory findings and
explanation thereof, radiographic findings,
and present status.  The examiner should
review the claims folder prior to the
examination and express an opinion as to
the probable etiology and onset of any
gastrointestinal disorder.  All necessary
tests should be performed.

4.  After the above actions have been
completed, the RO should adjudicate the
claim, in light of all the evidence and
the applicable legal criteria.  A
discussion regarding the application of
38 U.S.C.A. § 1111 and § 1113 (West 1991),
and 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (m) (1993) should be
considered, if appropriate.

The RO should then review the veteran's claims in light of all
the evidence and applicable legal criteria.  If his claim remains
denied, the veteran and his representative should be provided
with a supplemental statement of the case that includes any
additional pertinent law and regulations and a full discussion of
the evidence in his case.  The appropriate response time should
be allowed.  The case should be returned to the Board, if in
order, after compliance with all regulatory appellate procedures.
No action is required of the veteran until he is so informed.
The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate decision
warranted in this case, pending completion of the requested
development.

H. N. SCHWARTZ
          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 action has been taken in
accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).