BVA9500231 
DOCKET NO.  93-03 335     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas

THE ISSUES

1.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a
duodenal ulcer.

2.  Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for high
frequency hearing loss, bilateral.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

G. P. Hanson, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from January 1953 to January
1956 and from February 1956 to March 1979.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a rating decision of August 1992 issued by the
Waco, Texas, Regional Office (hereinafter RO) concluding that new
and material evidence sufficient to reopen the veteran's claim of
entitlement to service connection for a duodenal ulcer had not
been submitted and that a basis did not exist upon which to
predicate entitlement to a compensable evaluation for bilateral
high frequency hearing loss.

In a statement dated in March 1993, the veteran's representative
asserts that the rating decision of May 1985 by which the RO
initially denied entitlement to service connection for ulcer
disease is clearly and unmistakably erroneous.  As this matter
was raised for the first time in the March 1993 statement, it has
not yet been addressed by the RO or developed for appellate
consideration.  This matter must be adjudicated prior to the
Board's consideration of the issue of whether new and material
evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to
service connection for duodenal ulcer, as a finding of clear and
unmistakable error in the May 1985 rating decision would render
the issue currently certified for appellate review moot.

REMAND

It is alleged that the medical records currently assembled for
appellate review are incomplete.  In a statement dated in
September 1984, the veteran stated that he had been receiving
treatment at the Dyess Air Force Base since his retirement from
service.  He also stated that he received treatment from Wilford
Hall Medical Center.  In response to an October 1984 request from
the RO, the Dyess Air Force Base hospital provided records
beginning in July 1981.  It does not appear that the records
provided are comprehensive.  A statement from Larry Parsons,
M.D., dated in April 1992, indicates that the veteran was treated
from July 1965 to the present at the Family Practice Department,
96th Medical Group, Dyess Air Force Base.  No contemporaneously
recorded clinical records were submitted with the statement.

Finally, the veteran asserts that he received extensive treatment
during service for stomach complaints, and that he has copies of
service medical records which document such treatment.  Service
medical records available for the Board's review do not reflect
the treatment claimed by the veteran.

In view of the above, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the
following actions:

1.  The RO should obtain complete clinical
records from the Dyess Air Force Base
Hospital, Abilene, Texas, and the Wilford
Hall Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas,
for the veteran, both while he was on
active duty and after his retirement from
service.

2.  The RO should request the veteran to
submit copies all service medical records
in his possession to the VA.  If he has any
original service medical records, these
should be submitted.  The veteran is hereby
notified that his failure to provide copies
of all service medical records in his
possession may adversely affect his claim.
As the United States Court of Veterans
Appeals has stated, "the duty to assist is
not always a one-way street.  If a veteran
wishes help, he cannot passively wait for
it in those circumstances where he may or
should have information that is essential
in obtaining the putative evidence."  Wood
v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 193 (1991).

3.  The RO should adjudicate the issue of
whether or not the rating decision of May
1985 was clearly and unmistakably
erroneous.

On completion of the above development, the RO should again
review the veteran's claim.  Should his claim remain denied, he
should be issued a supplemental statement of the case and be
given the appropriate period of time in which to respond.
Additionally, the RO should issue a supplemental statement of the
case with regard to any new issue for which a notice of
disagreement is filed.  The veteran and his representative should
be provided an opportunity to respond and they should be notified
that a substantive appeal must be filed with regard to any new
issue.  Thereafter, subject to current appellate procedure, the
case should be returned to the Board for further consideration,
if in order.  No action is required on the part of the veteran
nor his representative until further notice is received.  By this
action, the Board intimates no opinion, legal or factual, as to
the ultimate disposition warranted.

GARY L. GICK
          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).