BVA9504685 
DOCKET NO.  93-09 997     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Fort Harrison,
Montana

THE ISSUE

Whether there was clear an unmistakable error in the March 1947
rating decision which assigned a 10 percent rating, Muscle Group
VII, for the residuals of a gunshot wound of the left forearm.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

L. M. Barnard, Counsel

REMAND

The veteran served on active duty from December 1940 to October
1945.

This appeal arises from an October 1992 rating decision of the
Fort Harrison, Montana, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
Regional Office (RO), which found that there was no clear and
unmistakable error in the March 1947 rating action.

The veteran contends, in essence, that the March 1947 rating
action was clearly and unmistakably erroneous because it failed
to award more than 10 percent for his gunshot wound residuals.
He asserts that he suffered a through and through wound and that
Muscle Groups VII and VIII were affected.  It is also asserted
that he suffered a compound comminuted fracture of the left
radius at the time of the injury.  Therefore, he believes that a
greater disability evaluation should have been granted at that
time.

VA has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of all
facts pertinent to his claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991);
38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) (1994).  In the instant case, the veteran
has alleged that he should have been granted a greater degree of
disability in 1947 because the evidence then in the record
revealed the involvement of two muscle groups.  The service
medical records appeared to indicate that there was an exit wound
on the dorsal aspect of the left forearm, thus suggesting that
Muscle Group VIII may also have been involved.  However, the VA
examination conducted in February 1947 identified scarring on the
antero-lateral aspect of the left forearm.  A physician has not
specified which muscles of the forearm were involved, based upon
a review of the evidence of record prior to March 1947.  It is
the conclusion of the undersigned that an opinion from an
orthopedist as to what muscles were affected by the veteran's
gunshot wound is necessary on the old record prior to March 1947
before a determination as to clear and unmistakable error can be
made.

Under the circumstances, additional assistance is necessary, and
this case is REMANDED to the RO for the following:
The RO should request that a VA orthopedist
review the veteran's claims folder and
determine, based upon the medical evidence
of record prior to March 1947, what muscles
were affected by the veteran's service-
connected gunshot wound.  It is noted that
the review of the evidence must be limited
to the service medical records and the VA
examination performed in February 1947.
Following the review of this evidence, the
examiner should specifically identify the
names of the muscles involved, as well as
the Muscle Groups affected, and whether or
not there was a through and through injury
to more than one Muscle Group.  The claims
folder must be made available to the
examiner.

In the event that the veteran's claim remains denied, in whole or
in part, he and his representative should be provided with an
appropriate supplemental statement of the case, and an
opportunity to respond, and the case should be returned to the
Board for further appellate consideration if otherwise in order.

          C. P. RUSSELL
          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).