BVA9501581 
DOCKET NO.  93-06 308     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis,
Indiana

THE ISSUES

Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder, a
bilateral knee disorder, and a bilateral foot disorder.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Neil Reiter, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from February 1984 to November
1990.

This case came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board)
on appeal from an October 1991 rating decision of the
Indianapolis, Indiana, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
Regional Office (RO).

In addition to the stated issues, the veteran's notice of
disagreement also referred to claims for service connection for
hearing loss, a psychiatric disorder, and a disorder manifested
by blackout spells.  The initial statement of the case addressed
all these issues.  The veteran's substantive appeal referred only
to a "condition."  At a hearing in June 1992, it was stipulated
that the issues for consideration were  the three issues stated
on the preceding page.  The hearing officer's decision addressed
only these three issues ,and they are the only issues certified
on appeal by the RO.  Accordingly, we consider any additional
issues to be withdrawn and not properly before us.

REMAND

The veteran's service medical records are critical to his claims.
It is particularly noteworthy that on VA examination
approximately two months after the veteran's discharge from
active service arthritic changes were shown by X-ray, and
clinical examination produced a diagnosis of prepatellar
bursitis.  The RO has determined that the veteran's service
medical records are unavailable; but it appears that the search
for such records was less than exhaustive.  Apparently, the Naval
Reserve Personnel Center and the National Personnel Records
Center were the two facilities primarily contacted.  The veteran
testified at a hearing at the RO that his last sea duty
assignment was Adak, Alaska, and that he processed out from
service at the Puget Sound Naval Base and turned in his medical
records there.  An exhaustive search for such records is mandated
by the facts of this case.

Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following:

1.  The veteran should be contacted and
asked to provide detailed information
regarding his duty stations.

2.  The RO should then arrange for an
exhaustive search for the veteran's
complete service medical records.  The
search should encompass all duty stations
listed by the veteran, all service medical
records depositories, and the veteran's
service personnel file (to which the
service medical records or a microfiche of
such records may have been attached).  If
the records cannot be located, they should
be certified as lost.

3.  If the service medical records are
located and include information which
mandates further development, such
development should be accomplished.

The case should then be reviewed by the RO in light of any
additional information obtained.  If the benefits sought remain
denied, the RO should provide a supplemental statement of the
case to the veteran and his representative and give them ample
opportunity to respond.  The case should then be returned to the
Board for further appellate review.

No action by the veteran is necessary until he is notified.

                                                 (CONTINUED ON
NEXT PAGE

          GEORGE R. SENYK
          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).