BVA9502779 
DOCKET NO.  93-09 189     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta,
Georgia

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric
disorder.

2.  Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

G. P. Hanson, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from February 1969 to November
1971.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a rating decision of August 1991, issued by the
Atlanta, Georgia, Regional Office (hereinafter RO), denying the
veteran entitlement to service connection for the disabilities at
issue.

Appellate consideration of the issue of entitlement to service
connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is deferred
pending completion of the development requested below.

REMAND

The threshold question is whether the veteran has met his burden
of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief that his
claims are well-grounded.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991).  If
his claims are not shown to be well-grounded, the Board does not
have jurisdiction over the question of whether the benefits
sought on appeal are warranted.  Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14
(1993).  In this context, the Board finds that the veteran's
evidentiary assertions of symptoms a lay party is competent to
report, when viewed in conjunction with the medical evidence in
file, are sufficient to establish plausible claims and ones that
are well-grounded.  Proscelle v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 629
(1992); King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993).

A preliminary review of the records and arguments advanced by the
veteran, particularly at a hearing held on appeal at the RO in
September 1992, indicates that the fundamental questions
presented in this case are the etiology and chronicity of claimed
psychiatric and skin disorders.  A review of the service medical
records reveals that, while the veteran reported at pre-induction
physical examination in September 1968 that he had foot problems
prior to service, no skin abnormality was noted on clinical
evaluation, and he was treated in service in May and June 1969
for a pruritic rash of the knees, hands and feet.  The Board also
notes that the veteran performed active duty for approximately a
year in Vietnam.

A report of dermatological examination conducted by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) indicates only that the
veteran had objective evidence of tinea corpora, but did not
comment as to the etiology of the skin disorder.  In this
respect, we also note that the veteran reported that he had been
treated by private physicians for dermatological conditions
sometime after his separation from active duty.

The VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of
facts pertinent to his claim, as mandated by 38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a) (West 1991).  In order to afford the veteran every
consideration and to satisfy the duty to assist, the Board finds
that further development of the evidence is indicated.
Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following
action:

1.  The RO should request that the veteran
provide the names and addresses of all
health care providers who treated him for
any disability following his separation
from service, as well as the approximate
dates of treatment.  Thereafter, after
necessary authorizations for the release of
medical information is obtained from him,
the RO should attempt to obtain copies of
treatment records from all sources
identified by the veteran for inclusion in
the claims folder.

2.  Thereafter, the veteran should be
afforded a VA dermatological examination.
All tests indicated should be performed,
and studies, as needed, should be
performed.  The veteran's claims folder
should be made available to the examiner
for review in conjunction with the
examination.  The report of examination
should include a detailed account of all
skin pathology shown to be present.  The
examiner should also be requested to give
an opinion as to the etiology of any skin
disability found.

If the claims are not resolved to the veteran's satisfaction,
both he and his representative should be provided with a
supplemental statement of the case and given an opportunity to
respond.  Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board
for further appellate review.  In taking this action, the Board
implies no conclusion, either legal or factual, as to any
ultimate outcome warranted.  No action is required on the part of
the veteran or his representative until either is notified by the
RO.

          J.F. GOUGH
          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).