BVA9507399 
DOCKET NO.  93-14 231     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan,
Puerto Rico

THE ISSUE

Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a
claim of entitlement to benefits on account of permanent
incapacity for self-support of the deceased veteran's child,
[redacted], prior to the child's 18th birthday, on February [redacted] 1981.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: American Red Cross

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Robert A. Leaf, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active duty from March 1953 to January 1955.  The
veteran's son, [redacted], was born in February 1963.  The veteran
died in March 1983.  A March 1989 decision of the Board of
Veterans' Appeals (Board) determined that [redacted] was not
permanently incapable of self-support prior to reaching his 18th
birthday and, accordingly, entitlement to Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) benefits as a "child" was denied.

Since September 1990, the appellant, who is the veteran's
daughter and [redacted]'s sister, has filed a claim on his behalf, and
submitted various documents, seeking to reopen a claim for
benefits for [redacted] as a "child" of the veteran on the basis of
permanent incapacity for self-support prior to reaching age 18.
November 1990, October 1992, and April 1993 decisions of the San
Juan, Puerto Rico, Regional Office (RO) appear to treat the
additional evidence as reopening the claim for benefits for
helpless child status.  Among the items of evidence submitted
were two statements in Spanish from a physician and a school
transcript in Spanish; these documents were not accompanied by
certified translations.

The Court of Veterans Appeals has established a two-step analysis
which must be applied in cases in which a claimant seeks to
reopen a claim which has become final.  First, there must be a
determination as to whether there is new and material evidence to
reopen the claim.  If there is such evidence, the claim must be
reviewed on the basis of all of the evidence, both old and new.
A decision regarding either step is appealable.  Manio v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140 (1991).  Therefore, in assessing the
sufficiency of the additional evidence for purposes of reopening
a claim, a critical examination of all the evidence of record is
necessary.  A review of the claims folder does not reflect that
such analysis has ever been undertaken.  For that reason, the
Board characterized the issue as it is shown on the title page of
this action.  Further action is required by the RO prior to
appellate review.

In order to ensure compliance with due process requirements, the
case is REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  The RO should obtain certified
translations of September 1990 and June
1992 statements from Carmen A. Saenz, M.D.,
and a transcript of grades earned by [redacted]
from 1978 to 1981.

2.  The RO should enter a decision
determining whether additional evidence
added to the record since the Board's March
1989 decision is new and material with
respect to the issue of permanent
incapacity for self-support due to physical
or mental incapacity of the veteran's
child, [redacted], prior to his 18th birthday.
Such determination should be made in
accordance with the Court of Veterans
Appeals decision in Manio, supra.  If it is
determined that new and material evidence
has not been submitted, the appellant and
her representative should be provided with
a supplemental statement of the case which
provides laws and regulations pertaining to
finality of appellate decisions and to the
nature of evidence required to reopen
previously disallowed claims; additionally,
they should be provided an opportunity for
response.
3.  If it is determined that new and
material evidence has been submitted and
the claim reopened, then the RO should
again address the underlying issue of
whether [redacted] became permanently incapable
of self-support prior to his 18th birthday.
If the decision on that issue remains
adverse to the appellant, a supplemental
statement of the case should be furnished
and she and her representative provided an
opportunity for response.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further
consideration, if in order.  By this remand, the Board intimates
no opinion as to the final outcome warranted.  No action is
required of the appellant until she is so notified.

          N. R. ROBIN
          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).