BVA9500055 
DOCKET NO.  93-03 863     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago,
Illinois

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for vascular headaches.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

C.A. Skow, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The appellant served on active duty from May 1975 to June 1981.

This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from a July 1991 decision of the Chicago,
Illinois, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO).

The appellant contends that her current vascular headache
disorder is related to the headaches she experienced during
service.

A review of the evidence of record reveals that the appellant was
seen during service for headaches which were clinically assessed
as sinusitis, and that she was involved in substance abuse during
service.  The appellant was first diagnosed with a vascular
headache disorder in 1984, and requested service connection for
this disorder in October 1990.

At a hearing conducted in November 1992, the appellant indicated
that she received treatment for headaches from the following VA
Medical Centers (VAMC):  the Cheyenne VAMC in Wyoming from 1981
to 1984; either the Brentwood or Loma Linda VAMC in California
from 1984 to 1986; and the Hines VAMC in either 1986 or 1987, and
the Chicago (Westside) VAMC in Illinois from 1986 to 1992.
However, the Board notes that the VA treatment records from the
California (Brentwood or Loma Linda) and Hines VAMC have not been
obtained, and that the current objective medical evidence of
record does not indicate whether or not the appellant's current
vascular headache disorder is etiologically related to the
headaches she experienced during service.

After reviewing all the medical evidence of record, including the
service medical records, and the testimony of the appellant, the
Board finds that the evidence of records is inadequate to
determine the appellant's claim to service connection for
vascular headaches.  The duty to assist includes the duty to
develop the pertinent facts by conducting a medical examination
when the medical evidence is inadequate.  Green v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 121 (1990), and requesting all pertinent records.  38
U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991)..

In view of the above,  the Board believes that additional
development to include a VA examination is necessary in this
case.  38 U.S.C.A. 5107(a) (West 1991), and Akles v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 118 (1991).

Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to VARO for the following
development:

1.  VARO should obtain all VA inpatient and
outpatient treatment records pertaining to
the appellant from the Brentwood and Loma
Linda VAMC in California dating from 1984
through 1986, and the Hines VAMC in
Illinois dating from 1986 to 1987.

2.  The appellant should be afforded both a
VA "eye, ear, nose and throat" examination
and a VA neurologic examination to
determine the nature of any current
headache disorder, and to identify the
etiology of any current headache
manifestations.  The examiner should opine
on whether or not the appellant's post-
service headaches may be clearly
dissociated from the in-service headaches.
The claims folder should be made available
to the examiner for review before the
examination.

3.  After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent possible,
VARO should again review the record.  If
any benefit sought on appeal, for which a
notice of disagreement has been filed,
remains denied, the appellant and
representative should be furnished 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.

          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) (1993).