BVA9508089 
DOCKET NO.  92-02 944     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New
York

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for multiple sclerosis.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

P. J. McCarty, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from March 1964 to March 1967.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a July 1991 decision of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York.

In February 1993, the Board remanded the case for further
development of the record.

REMAND

Essentially, the veteran contends that service connection is
warranted for multiple sclerosis as symptoms of the disease
manifested within seven years of his discharge from service.

Initially, the Board notes that after a diligent search by the
RO, the veteran's service medical records were determined to have
been misplaced.  The evidence of record establishes that the
veteran presently has multiple sclerosis and optic neuropathy
secondary to multiple sclerosis.

The veteran has submitted two undated letters from Morton J.
Jacobs, D.C., which indicate that Dr. Jacobs treated the veteran
from January 1972 to September 1979 for complaints of numbness,
tingling, and muscle weakness of the left arm and left leg.  He
noted that these symptoms suggested partial paralysis and
circulatory involvement.  Most of the treatments consisted of
spinal and soft tissue manipulation with passive exercise.  Dr.
Jacobs indicates that the veteran's symptoms may have been
possible multiple sclerosis.  The veteran also submitted a letter
from Remedios C. Sioco, M.D., dated in June 1989, which indicates
that Dr. Sioco treated the veteran in January 1974 for upper
respiratory infection and numbness of the left leg and left hand.
Dr. Sioco notes that the veteran was treated and told that he
should see a neurologist if his symptoms persisted.

VA examination reports dated in August and September 1989, and
March 1993 establish that the veteran presently has multiple
sclerosis, and that he has reported a history of having had the
disease since 1972.

In February 1993, pursuant to a February 1993 remand, the RO
requested copies of the actual treatment reports from Dr. Jacobs
and Dr. Sioco.  No response was received.  Similarly, no response
was received regarding information requests sent to the veteran
and the New York State Department of Social Services.

Because there is conflicting evidence regarding the date of onset
of the veteran's multiple sclerosis, the Board finds that further
development and a medical opinion regarding the date of onset of
multiple sclerosis would be helpful to the Board's evaluation of
the issue of entitlement to service connection for multiple
sclerosis.  VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the
development of facts pertinent to a well-grounded claim.  38
U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).  The Court of Veterans Appeals
has held that the duty to assist the veteran includes the duty to
obtain examinations when indicated, and the duty to obtain
pertinent medical records.  Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90
(1990).

Accordingly, the Board concludes that further RO action is
necessary.  The case is therefore REMANDED to the RO for the
following actions:

1.  The veteran should be requested to
provide the names, addresses, and
approximate dates of treatment for all VA
and non-VA health care providers who have
treated him at any time for symptomatology
related to multiple sclerosis.  With any
necessary authorization, the RO should
attempt to obtain copies of all
postservice treatment reports identified
by the veteran which have not been
previously secured.  Specifically, the RO
should again attempt to obtain copies of
actual treatment records, rather than
summaries, from Morton J. Jacobs, D.C.,
and Remedios C. Sioco, M.D., regarding
treatment of the veteran.  If necessary, a
VA field examiner should be sent to the
physician's offices to obtain the
requested information.

2.  The RO should again attempt to obtain
copies of all records relied upon by the
New York State Department of Social
Services in March 1982, when it determined
that the veteran was legally blind.

3.  Then, the RO should schedule the
veteran for a VA examination by a board-
certified neurologist, if available, in
order to determine the nature and extent
of the veteran's multiple sclerosis.  The
rationale for any opinions expressed
should be provided.  The claims folder
must be made available to the examiner for
full review prior to the examination.

4.  Then, the RO should undertake any
other indicated development, and then
readjudicate the issue on appeal.

If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the veteran's
satisfaction, or if a timely notice of disagreement is received
with respect to any other matter, the RO should issue a
Supplemental Statement of the Case for all issues in appellate
status, and the veteran and his representative provided an
opportunity to respond.  With respect to any issue addressed in
the Supplemental Statement of the Case which does not appear on
the title page of this decision, the RO should advise the veteran
of the requirements to perfect an appeal.  Thereafter, the case
should be returned to the Board for further consideration, if
otherwise in order.  By this REMAND, the Board intimates no
opinion as to any final outcome warranted.  No action is required
of the veteran until he is notified by the RO.

          F. JUDGE FLOWERS
          Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

(CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)

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.  The above 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).