BVA9503903 DOCKET NO. 93-10 510 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUES Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, an ear disorder, a body weight disorder, a kidney disorder, athlete's foot, acne, jock rash, hair loss, and an acquired psychiatric disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. B. Weiss, Associate Counsel REMAND The veteran had active duty from September 1987 to August 1990, with over 17 years and 7 months of prior active duty. In the veteran's substantive appeal in October 1991, he makes reference to a left shoulder disorder, a left testicle disorder, a left wrist disorder, and a dental disorder. Claims for service connection for these disorders have not been developed for appellate review, are not inextricably intertwined with the instant claims, and are not before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) at this time. Therefore, his contentions are referred to the regional office (RO) for appropriate action to include adjudication. In addition to the issues on the title page, the initial issues for appellate review included entitlement to service connection for degenerative joint disease of the knees, fallen arches, and pseudofolliculitis barbae. However, these claims were granted by rating action of February 1993 and, thus, are no longer for appellate review. The veteran's representative asserted, in a November 1993 statement, that the veteran claimed additional service in 1968 and 1969 which had not been verified. In the veteran's substantive appeal, he made reference to having been "drafted" in 1968 or 1969. The Board notes that in a "Career Narrative" received with the substantive appeal, the veteran is reported to have begun service in February 1970. On claim forms filed, the veteran has indicated service from February 1970. However, it is not absolutely clear whether there is any prior service. It is noted that in a statement, dated in April 1993, the veteran's representative requests that the veteran be medically evaluated for residuals of exposure to toxic substances in service affecting the eyes. In the same statement, the representative alleges that exposure to loud noise in service caused hearing loss and tinnitus and that "water ear" began in service. The Board notes that there is some evidence to indicate that the veteran was exposed to loud noise and various chemicals in service. The service separation examination indicated a recommendation of an optometry examination, which, if performed, is not of record. The service separation examination did include a hearing acuity test. Service connection for sensorineural hearing loss may granted when there are manifested to a compensable degree within one year after separation, even if not shown in service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1994). No post service audiological or eye examination has been performed, although both were requested by the representative. A review of the claims folder reflects that the service medical records obtained through the service department cover only a portion of the veteran's military service. The veteran has submitted copies of many records which are apparently in his possession. To ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has met its duty to assist the claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claims and to ensure full compliance with due process requirements, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following development: 1. The veteran should be contacted to determine if he had any service prior to February 1970. If he indicates such service, the RO should request verification by the service department. 2. The RO should request that the service department conduct a search for any additional service medical records for the veteran. Any records obtained should be associated with the claims folder. 3. The RO should ask the veteran to provide copies of any service medical records in his possession which he has not already provided to the RO. 4. The RO should obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers who have treated the veteran for the claimed disorders since service separation. After securing the necessary releases, the RO should attempt to obtain these records. 5. The veteran should be afforded a VA eye examination to determine the nature and etiology of any eye disorder. The examiner should render an opinion on whether any disorder found is attributable to occupational exposure to chemicals. A complete history should be obtained. In addition, the information contained in the veteran's service medical records regarding exposure to chemicals should be reviewed. The examiner should state expressly if the opinion requested cannot be provided. The claims folder should be made available to the examiner for review before the examination. Any indicated diagnostic studies or consultations should be performed. 6. The veteran should be afforded a VA audiological and ear, nose, and throat examination to determine the nature and etiology of any ear disorder. A complete history should be obtained. In addition, notations contained in the veteran's service medical records regarding exposure to aircraft noise, generators, portable equipment, and vehicle noises should be reviewed. Any indicated diagnostic studies or consultations should be performed. The veteran's claims folder should be made available to the examiners in this case. When this development has been completed, the claim should be reviewed by the RO. If any benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the appellant and his representative should be given a supplemental statement of the case with regard to the additional development and should also be afforded an opportunity to respond. The record should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. No action by the appellant or his representative is required until further notice is received. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome of this case. V. L. JORDAN 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).