BVA9506498 
DOCKET NO.  93-15 802     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston-Salem,
North Carolina

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C. M. Flatley, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran's active service has been confirmed as extending from
April 1974 to February 1992, with a prior period of active
service in excess of six years noted.

In a letter received at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in
August 1993, the veteran expressed concern as to the adjudication
of his claim of service connection for prostate and kidney
disorders.  Contrary to the veteran's apparent understanding, the
record indicates service connection was not allowed for a kidney
condition, but for benign prostatic hypertrophy "claimed" as a
kidney condition.  The matter is referred to the regional office
(RO) for clarification and any appropriate action.

REMAND

Initial review of the record indicates that the veteran has
submitted a well-grounded claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West
1991).  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) therefore has a
duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent
to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 78, 81-82 (1990).  In this case, additional pertinent
evidence was received at the Board subsequent to the transfer of
the veteran's case from the RO.  Such records include reports of
examinations conducted in response to the veteran's complaints of
palpitations; follow-up evaluations were indicated.  In a January
1994 statement submitted on appeal, the veteran's representative
emphasized that the records include a diagnosis of a ratable
cardiac disability.

In addition, the veteran related instances in service in which he
experienced cardiac symptomatology.  His representative has
stressed that the veteran has not undergone a comprehensive
cardiology examination since service.  Upon review of the record,
the Board is of the opinion that additional clinical data may
prove helpful in the evaluation of the veteran's claim.  In order
to fully assist the veteran in the development of his case and
extend to the veteran every equitable consideration, therefore,
the Board concludes that additional development is warranted.  As
such, this case is REMANDED for the following:

1.  After any necessary information and
authorization are obtained from the
veteran, records of any post-December 1993
treatment, VA or private, inpatient or
outpatient, associated with the veteran's
claimed heart disorder, should be obtained
by the RO and incorporated into the claims
folder.

2.  A special VA cardiology examination
should be scheduled to determine the nature
and etiology of any cardiac pathology.  The
examination should be conducted in
accordance with the appropriate provisions
of the VA's Physician's Guide for
Disability Evaluation Examinations.  The
veteran's claims folder should be provided
to the examiner for review prior to the
examination.  Any symptoms and complaints
and the history thereof should be addressed
and all indicated studies should be
conducted.  In particular, the examiner
should be requested to provide an opinion
with respect to whether any cardiac
arrhythmia currently present is indicative
of a disease process and, if so, the degree
of probability, if any, that such pathology
is related to service.

3.  The RO should then review the veteran's
claim, including in light of all additional
evidence received since its most recent
pertinent rating action.  If the veteran's
claim remains in a denied status, he and
his representative should be provided with
a supplemental statement of the case, which
includes all pertinent law and regulations
and a full discussion of action taken on
the veteran's claim, consistent with the
Court's instruction in Gilbert v.
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990).  They
should be afforded the applicable time to
respond.

The case should then be returned to the Board, if in order, after
compliance with customary appellate procedures.  No action is
required of the veteran until he is so informed.  The Board
intimates no opinion as to the ultimate decision warranted in
this case, pending completion of the requested development.

          CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM
          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 action has been taken in
accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994,
Pub. L. No. 133-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and 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).