BVA9506825 
DOCKET NO.  93-09 569     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver,
Colorado

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a left foot/ankle disorder.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant and his Spouse.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Brynn K. Bloomgren, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active duty from July 1948 to April 1954.
This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter the Board) on appeal from an April 1992 rating
decision of the Denver, Colorado, Regional Office (hereinafter
RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter VA), which
found that a claim for service connection for a left foot/ankle
disorder was reopened, but found that service connection was not
warranted.  The RO previously denied entitlement to service
connection for a left leg condition in September 1985.

REMAND

The veteran contends that service connection is warranted for a
left foot/ankle disorder.  He claims that he injured his foot
during service in the early 1950's and that he has had trouble
with his foot ever since that time.  He asserts that he did not
seek professional treatment until the 1980's, but that he self-
treated with hot soaks and aspirin.  He states that, immediately
after service, he was too busy to seek treatment because he was
looking for work.  He claims that he walked with a limp for many
years because of the injury.  The veteran argues that he has
submitted an eye-witness account of the injury in service as well
as other lay observations of his limping and foot trouble since
the injury.

Additional evidence was received at the RO, after the claims
folder was transferred to the Board, without the veteran having
waived the RO's consideration of the additional evidence.  The
evidence included treatment records and an additional lay
statement regarding the veteran's left foot.  The evidence was
forwarded to the Board as required by 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(b)
(1994).

Any pertinent evidence submitted by the appellant and forwarded
to the Board under 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(b) must be referred to the
agency of original jurisdiction for review and preparation of a
supplemental statement of the case unless this procedural right
is waived by the appellant.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (1994).

Based on the aforesaid, the case is REMANDED for the following
action:

The RO should again review the record,
including the additional evidence which has
been recently associated with the claims
file.  If the benefits sought on appeal are
not granted, the RO should furnish the
veteran and his representative a
supplemental statement of the case,
including a summary of the relevant
evidence, citation to the applicable laws
and regulations, and reasons and bases for
the decision, and be afforded the
opportunity to respond before the record is
returned to the Board for further appellate
review.

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

          JACK W. BLASINGAME
          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).