BVA9500015 
DOCKET NO.  93-05 922     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg,
Florida

THE ISSUE

Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a
previously denied claim of service connection for a disability of
the right ankle, foot and toe.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

P. B. Werdal, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from March 1942 to March 1946.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) of
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on appeal from a decision
letter dated February 13, 1992, from the St. Petersburg, Florida,
Regional Office (RO).  The notice of disagreement was received in
February 1992.  The statement of the case was sent to the veteran
in April 1992.  The substantive appeal was received in February
1993.

REMAND

The veteran raised several claims in a VA Form 21-4138, Statement
in Support of Claim, received by the RO in December 1991, among
them claims for increased ratings for hearing disorders, malaria,
gunshot wounds, and for service connection for arthritis, a right
hand disability, hip and back disabilities.

In addition, the veteran raised a claim for service connection
for a disability of the right ankle, foot and toe.  That claim
was previously denied by the Board in a decision dated November
2, 1960.  That decision is a final decision, and cannot be
reopened unless new and material evidence is submitted.  38
U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105(c) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(a)
(1993).  However, the RO did not develop and adjudicate the
December 1991 claim as an attempt to reopen the previously denied
claim, but instead identified the December 1991 VA Form 21-4138
as a notice of disagreement with VA's 1960 denial and developed
the appeal on the basis of timeliness of that notice of
disagreement.  The Board believes the claim should have been
developed as an attempt to reopen the previously denied claim,
and the RO should have applied the analysis set out by the United
States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) in Manio v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 140 (1991).  New and material evidence is evidence not
previously submitted to agency decision makers which bears
directly and substantially on the specific matter under
consideration, which is neither cumulative nor redundant, and
which by itself or in combination with evidence already of record
is so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly
decide the merits of the claim.  38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (1993).
Review of attempts to reopen claims is a two-step process,
consisting of a review of the evidence submitted since the last
final decision to determine whether it is new and material and
whether the claim is reopened, then, if it is reopened, a review
of all the evidence, both old and new, to determine whether the
benefit should be granted.  An adverse determination regarding
either step is appealable.  Manio, id.

The Board observes that the veteran's claims for increased
ratings for hearing disorders, malaria and gunshot wounds were
denied, as was a claim for service connection for arthritis, in a
rating decision dated in January 1993.  Service connection was
granted in that decision for bayonet scar, right little finger,
and the disability was assigned a noncompensable rating.
However, there is no indication that the veteran has been
informed of that decision, or of his appellate and procedural
rights in that regard.

Under the circumstances of this case, additional development is
necessary.  Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the
following action:

1.  The RO should review the veteran's
claim for service connection for a
disability of the right ankle, foot and toe
by first determining whether new and
material evidence has been submitted since
the Board's 1960 denial to reopen that
claim then, if so, whether all evidence
both old and new warrants the grant of
service connection for that disability.
The two-step analysis set out by the Court
in Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 140
(1991), should be employed.  An adverse
determination regarding either step is
appealable.

2.  The RO should inform the veteran and
his representative of its decisions
regarding his claims for increased ratings
for hearing disorders, malaria and gunshot
wounds; his claim for service connection
for arthritis; and his claim for service
connection for a bayonet scar, right little
finger, granted and assigned a
noncompensable disability rating.  He and
his representative should also be informed
of his appellate and procedural rights
regarding any adverse determinations, and
should be advised of the necessity of
filing a timely notice of disagreement
regarding any decision with which the
veteran disagrees.  In the event timely
notice(s) of disagreement is(are) received,
a supplemental statement of the case that
summarizes the relevant evidence, and
contains a citation to and discussion of
the applicable laws and regulations, the
reasons and bases for the decision, and a
discussion of the application of the laws
and regulations to the evidence.

All issues in appellate status following completion of the
requested action should be returned to the Board for appellate
review.  The purpose of this REMAND is to assist the veteran in
developing his claim.  No action is required of him until further
notice.  The Board expresses no opinion, either factual or legal,
as to the ultimate determination warranted in this case pending
completion of the requested action.

          EUGENE A. O'NEILL
          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.  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).