BVA9506513 
DOCKET NO.  93-12 108     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for
residuals of a gunshot wound to the left lower leg with partial
peroneal nerve damage, currently evaluated as 10 percent
disabling.

2.  Entitlement to an increased disability evaluation for a
gunshot wound scar on the right leg, currently evaluated as 10
percent disabling.

3.  Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen
the claim for service connection for peripheral vascular disease
as secondary to the veteran's service-connected residuals of
gunshot wounds of the lower extremities.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Veteran and his spouse

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Anna Bryant, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran has recognized service from November 1942 to
September 1944.

In July 1990, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied
entitlement to service connection for peripheral vascular
disease, denied entitlement to an increased rating for the
residuals of a gunshot wound to the left lower leg with partial
peroneal nerve damage, rated 10 percent and denied an increased
rating for the residuals of a gunshot wound scar on the right
lower leg, rated 10 percent disabling.

This matter came before the Board on appeal from a January 1991
rating decision of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Regional Office
(RO), which denied the veteran's claims seeking increased
disability evaluation for residuals of a gunshot wound to the
left lower leg with partial peroneal nerve damage and a gunshot
wound scar on the right leg.  By rating action in February 1992,
the RO denied the veteran's claim for service connection for
peripheral vascular disease.  In an October 1992 rating decision,
the RO denied the veteran's claims seeking entitlement to service
connection for tinnitus and retained shell fragment wounds of the
right foot, right hip, right thigh and left knee.  The veteran
was notified of this decision later in October 1992 and was
provided his appellate rights.  According to the records before
the Board he has not yet filed a notice of disagreement and these
issues have not been developed for appellate review.
Accordingly, these issues are not before the Board at this time.

REMAND

The veteran and his representative essentially contend that the
symptomatology attributable to his service-connected residuals of
gunshot wounds to the lower extremities have worsened and
increased disability evaluations are warranted.  On the occasion
of a hearing on appeal before a hearing officer in October 1991,
the veteran testified that he suffered from persistent pain in
his right ankle, recurring numbness and poor circulation in the
left leg, as well as hot and cold sensations.  He further
indicated that he was receiving ongoing outpatient treatment,
including medications, for persistent pain in his lower
extremities.

The Board notes that the veteran was afforded a Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) orthopedic examination in September 1992.
However, while it was indicated that electromyographic and X-ray
studies were performed, a report of the diagnostic tests was not
associated with the record certified for appellate review.  The
Board observes that since the Board's denial in July 1990, the
veteran has not submitted any medical evidence relating his
peripheral vascular disease to his service connected gun shot
wound residuals.  However, the veteran has also not been afforded
a VA examination for the purpose of determining the relationship,
if any, between his peripheral vascular disease and his service-
connected residuals of gunshot wounds to the lower extremities.
This further development is warranted to accurately consider the
appeal.  Under the circumstances of this case, the Board
concludes current VA examinations should be undertaken prior to
appellate disposition.

Accordingly, further appellate consideration will be deferred and
the case is REMANDED  to the RO for the following actions:

1.  The veteran should be requested to
identify any sources of medical treatment
received for his
service-connected residuals of gunshot
wounds since September 1991, and to furnish
signed authorizations for release to the VA
of private medical records in connection
with each non-VA source he identifies.
Copies of the medical records from all
sources he identifies (not already in the
claims folder) should then be requested.
All records obtained should be added to the
claims folder.

2.  The RO should schedule the veteran for
special orthopedic and neurological
examinations in order to ascertain the
current degree of disability associated
with his service-connected residuals of
gunshot wounds to the lower extremities and
the etiology of his peripheral vascular
disease.  The examinations should be
performed and reported in accordance with
the VA Physician's Guide for Disability
Evaluation Examinations.  All indicated
tests and studies should be undertaken,
including X-ray, electromyographic and
nerve conduction studies.  Range of motion
studies in all directions should be
indicated.  Any functional limitation of
the lower extremities due to pain should be
reported.  In addition, the examining
physician should express an opinion as to
the relationship, if any, between the
veteran's service-connected residuals of
gunshot wounds to the lower extremities and
his peripheral vascular disease.  The
claims folder should be made available to
and reviewed by the examiners prior to the
examination of the veteran.

After the above development has been completed, the RO should
review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claims
may now be granted.  If either determination remains adverse to
the veteran, he and his representative should be furnished a
supplemental statement of the case which summarizes the pertinent
evidence, fully cites the applicable legal provisions and
reflects detailed reasons and bases for the decision reached.

The veteran and his representative should be given the
opportunity to respond thereto.  Thereafter, the case should be
returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if
otherwise in order, following appropriate appellate procedures.
The purpose of the REMAND is to further develop the record.  The
Board does not intimate any opinion, either factual or legal, as
to the ultimate disposition warranted in this case.  No action is
required of the veteran until he receives further notice.

          S. L. COHN
          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).