BVA9501180 
DOCKET NO.  93-08 222     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery,
Alabama

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for
residuals of a hydrocelectomy of the right testicle.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

M. Auer, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from June 1955 to June 1959.

This appeal arises from a January 1992 rating decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Montgomery, Alabama,
Regional Office (RO).  In that decision, an increased
(compensable) evaluation for residuals of a hydrocelectomy of the
right testicle was denied.

The service medical records show that in November 1956, the
veteran was hospitalized with a painful and swollen right
testicle, due to an injury.  The hydrocele was aspirated many
times before a hydrocelectomy of the right testicle and
testicular biopsy were performed.  The veteran was given a
separation examination in June 1959.  No residuals related to the
hydrocelectomy of the right testicle were reported.

Although the veteran was seen by the VA on an outpatient basis in
October 1991, he has not received a thorough VA genitourinary
examination for his service-connected residuals of a
hydrocelectomy of the right testicle for many years.  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 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).

The claims file contains a letter from K. K. Bryant, M.D.,
dated in April 1993.  Dr. Bryant stated that he had been
intermittently treating the veteran since June 1974.  VA's
duty to assist also includes the procurement and
consideration of any relevant medical records.  Ferraro v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 326, 334 (1991).

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 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
residuals of a hydrocelectomy of the right
testicle since his discharge from service.
After obtaining the necessary authorization
from the veteran, the RO should obtain
available records from the named sources,
including copies of contemporaneous
treatment records from 1974 to the present
from K. K. Bryant, M.D., at 411 East 9th
Street, Anniston, Alabama 36201.  Care
should be taken by the RO so that duplicate
records are not placed in the claims
folder.

2.  The RO should obtain any available
treatment records from the VA hospitals or
medical centers where the veteran has
received treatment since October 1991.

3.  A VA genitourinary examination should
be arranged for the veteran to determine
the extent and severity of residuals of a
hydrocelectomy of the right testicle.  The
examination should be conducted in
accordance with the VA Physician's Guide
for Disability Evaluation Examinations
(1985).  The examiner should summarize the
relevant history, and identify all
pertinent complaints, symptoms, and
findings.  The examiner should describe any
post surgical residuals, including
scarring, and indicate whether any scarring
is tender and painful.  The examiner should
also express an opinion as to the
probability of a relationship between
current impotency and residuals of a
hydrocelectomy of the right testicle.  The
claims folder or copies of all pertinent
records should be made available to the
examiner for review.

The RO should then review the veteran's claims in light of all
the evidence and applicable legal criteria, including the
criteria for evaluation of scars.  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.

          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 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).