BVA9504790 
DOCKET NO.  93-10 998     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis,
Missouri

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Dutzman, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from July 1989 to September 1991.

This matter arises from a January 1992 rating decision in which
the regional office (RO) denied entitlement to service connection
for low back pain with sciatic involvement, headaches, sinusitis,
rhinitis and a neck disability.  The RO denied entitlement to
service connection on the ground that a low back disability, if
currently existent, pre-existed service.

At a hearing held before a hearing officer at the RO in February
1993, the veteran stated that he was withdrawing the issues of
service connection for headaches, sinusitis, rhinitis and a neck
condition.  In the hearing officer's decision and in a
supplemental statement of the case dated February 1993, it was
determined that a chronic back disability was not shown prior to
service.  However, the denial of service connection was continued
on the basis that a back disability had not been shown currently.

REMAND

After a complete review of the evidence, it appears that relevant
medical records have not been sought and are not part of the
claims folder.  In his formal claim, the veteran states that he
received treatment for his low back disability from Richard
Emery, a chiropractor.  While the claims folder contains a letter
from the chiropractor dated in August 1991, it does not contain
treatment records for the periods in which he treated the
veteran.  In that letter, it was reported that the veteran had
been treated for complaints which included low back pain
following an automobile accident in May 1989 and had been
examined in August 1991.  These treatment records may contain
evidence critical in evaluating whether or not the veteran's low
back disability is service connected.

The Board notes that a number of different impressions,
assessments and diagnoses referable to the low back have been
reported on Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examinations.  In
the September 1992 VA examination, the physician set forth a
diagnosis of "chronic low back pain" without expressing an
opinion as to the etiology of the pain.

In a statement dated in March 1993, the veteran questioned the
thoroughness of the VA examination, which was conducted in
September 1992, and, according to the veteran, "took all of ten
minutes."

In view of the foregoing, it is the decision of the Board that
this case should be REMANDED for the following actions:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran and
request that he furnish information as to
any treatment he has received for a low
back disability.  The RO should then take
all necessary steps to obtain those
records, including complete treatment
records from Richard Emery, the veteran's
chiropractor, and associate them with the
claims folder.

2.  After the above development, the RO
should schedule the veteran for a
comprehensive VA orthopedic examination.
This study must be conducted in accordance
with the VA Physician's Guide for
Disability Evaluation Examinations.  All
indicated tests must be conducted.  The
claims file must be made available to and
be reviewed by the examiner prior to the
requested study.  The examiner should set
forth a definitive diagnosis for any lower
back disability that is noted and discuss
the etiology of any relevant symptoms
identified.  A complete rationale for any
opinion expressed must be provided.

3.  Following completion of the foregoing,
the RO must review the claims folder and
ensure that all of the foregoing
development actions have been conducted and
completed in full.  If any development is
incomplete, including if the requested
examination does not include all test
reports, special studies or opinions
requested, appropriate corrective action is
to be implemented.

If after completion of the requested development the benefit
sought has not been granted, the veteran and his representative
should be furnished with a supplemental statement of the case and
be given a reasonable opportunity to respond.  Thereafter,
following compliance with all other procedures relative to the
processing of appeals, the case should be returned to the Board
for further appellate consideration.  No action is required of
the veteran until he receives further notice.

          LAWRENCE M. SULLIVAN
          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) (1994).