BVA9505373 
DOCKET NO.  93-16 956     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine
disability.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Pennsylvania Department of
Military Affairs Bureau for Veterans
Affairs and Assistance

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

James R. Siegel, Counsel

REMAND

The appellant was a member of the National Guard and was
apparently on active duty for training in July 1989.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from a decision of the Regional Office (RO).  By
rating action dated in November 1992, the RO denied the
appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for a
disability of the cervical spine.

The initial question before the Board is whether the appellant
has submitted a well-grounded claim as required by 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107.  The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court)
has held that a well-grounded claim is one which is plausible,
that is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation.
Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990).  In addition, in
Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992), the Court held that a
claim must be accompanied by evidence (emphasis in original).  In
this case, the available service medical records and the
appellant's statements concerning the onset of his cervical spine
disability are sufficient to conclude that his claim is well-
grounded.

The record discloses that, on July 6, 1989, while on active duty
for training, the appellant complained of fainting and dizziness.
It was noted that he experienced dizziness and tunnel vision
while driving.  He also complained of neck pain in the cervical
area with radiation up he back of his scalp and to the crown of
his head.  An examination showed muscle spasms of the left
suboccipital area.  The impressions were muscle spasms and
cephalalgia.  An X-ray of the cervical spine the next day was
normal, as was a CT scan of the brain later in July.  When he was
seen in March 1991, it was reported that an extensive
neurological work-up, including cervical spine X-rays, magnetic
resonance imaging of the cervical spine and head and an
electromyogram, was normal.

The appellant was examined by the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) in March 1992, and complained of pain in the neck for two
years.  Following an examination, the diagnosis was residuals of
cervical sprain.

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).  The
Court has held that the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining
and developing available facts and evidence to support his claim
includes obtaining adequate VA examination.  This duty is neither
optional nor discretionary.  Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90
(1990).  This duty also includes providing additional VA
examinations by a specialist when recommended.  Hyder v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 221 (1991).  The fulfillment of the
statutory duty to assist includes conducting a thorough and
contemporaneous medical examination, one which takes into account
the records of prior medical treatment, so that the evaluation of
the claimed disability will be a fully informed one.  Green v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 121, 124 (1991).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Board finds that
additional development of the record is required.  Accordingly,
the case is REMANDED to the RO for action as follows:

1.  The RO should contact the appellant and
request that he furnish the names,
addresses, and dates of treatment of all
medical providers from whom he has received
treatment for his cervical spine disability
since 1989.  He should execute the proper
authorization forms for release of this
information.

2.  Thereafter, the RO should seek to obtain
copies of all treatment records referred to
by the appellant.

3.  The appellant should then be afforded a
VA examination by a specialist in neurology
, if available, to determine the nature and
extent of any cervical spine disability.
All necessary tests should be performed.
The examiner is to be directed to furnish
an opinion concerning the proper diagnosis
for the appellant's symptoms which were
initially manifested in July 1989.  He
should also provide an opinion as to
whether the appellant currently has any
neck disability and if it is at least as
likely as not that his current symptoms are
causally related to the symptoms present
during active duty for training in July
1989.  The claims folder should be made
available to the examiner in conjunction
with the examination.

Following completion of the above, the RO should review the
evidence and determine whether the appellant's claim may now be
granted.  If not, he and his representative should be furnished
an appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and the case
should then be returned to the Board for further appellate
consideration.  By this action, the Board intimates no opinion,
legal or factual as to the ultimate disposition warranted.

          RICHARD B. FRANK
          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).