BVA9505551 
DOCKET NO.  93-10 495     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for a gastrointestinal
disorder, claimed as both ulcer disease and erosive esophagitis.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: West Virginia Department of
Veterans Affairs

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The veteran and his spouse

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. L. Prichard, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active service from September 1986 to December
1989.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) notes that the veteran's
claim originally included entitlement to a compensable evaluation
for Kienbock's disease, left wrist, status-post radial shortening
with well-healed scar and entitlement to service connection for a
right shoulder disability.  In a June 1992 rating decision,
service connection for residuals of a right shoulder sprain and a
10 percent evaluation for a left wrist disability were granted.
The veteran and his representative have not expressed any
disagreement with these actions.  Therefore, the Board will
conclude that those claims are satisfied and are not for
appellate review.

The veteran's current claim has been listed as both a claim for
service connection for ulcer disease and erosive esophagitis.
The veteran noted at the October 1991 personal hearing that he
believed that erosive esophagitis was a form of ulcer disease and
implied that his claim should include both issues.  Hearing
transcript
at 6.  Therefore, the Board will address the issue as shown on
the title page of this decision.

REMAND

Since the last supplemental statement of the case in July 1992,
additional relevant evidence was submitted that the regional
office (RO) has not yet considered in evaluating whether service
connection is warranted for a gastrointestinal (GI) disorder,
including erosive esophagitis and peptic ulcer disease.  The
newly submitted evidence includes September and November 1992
diagnoses of peptic ulcer disease and a December 1992 diagnosis
of mild esophagitis.  Under 38 C.F.R. § 19.37(a) (1994), the
evidence should be referred for rating action and the preparation
of a supplemental statement of the case.

In order to ensure that the veteran is provided every opportunity
to support his claim, the case is REMANDED for the following:

1.  The RO should obtain the names and
addresses of all medical care providers who
treated the veteran for a gastrointestinal
disorder since December 1992.  After
securing the necessary release, the RO
should obtain these records.

2.  The veteran should be afforded a VA
examination by a gastroenterologist in
order to determine the presence of any GI
disorder.  The examiner should be asked to
provide an opinion as to whether any
disorder found is etiologically or causally
related to any of the symptoms or disorders
shown during service.  The claims folder
must be made available to the examiner for
review before the examination.

3.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
the RO should again review the record.  If
the benefit sought on appeal remains
denied, the veteran and his representative
should be furnished with a supplemental
statement of the case and given the
opportunity to respond thereto.

Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order.  The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate outcome
of this case.  The appellant need take no action unless otherwise
notified.

          M. SABULSKY
          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).