BVA9501384 
DOCKET NO.  93-09 921     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to special monthly pension benefits based on the need
for regular aid and attendance or on being housebound.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: The American Legion

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Tresa Schlecht, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The appellant had active service from May 1943 to October 1945.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board)
on appeal from a June 1992 rating decision of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg,
Florida, which denied entitlement to special monthly pension.

REMAND

Review of the record reveals that the veteran is seeking special
monthly pension benefits based on the need for regular aid and
attendance, based largely on his impaired visual acuity.  The VA
has determined his visual acuity to be 20/400 bilaterally with or
without correction.  He has aphakia and severe macular
degeneration of both eyes.  His private physician has reported
visual acuity of less than 5/200 bilaterally.  The record does
not reflect that his visual fields have recently been plotted.
This should be done for proper evaluation of the claim.  See
38 C.F.R. § 3.351 (c) (1993).

In addition to his visual impairment, there are other disorders
that may interfere with the veteran's ability to protect himself
from the hazards and dangers incident to his daily environment.
He has been noted to have cardiovascular problems and has had a
pace maker placed.  There is some suggestion, prior to the
placement of the pace maker that he had decreased stamina.  He
also reported has questionable chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease.  A more comprehensive evaluation needs to be carried out
for evaluation of these disorders.  We deem the clinical evidence
currently on file to be inadequate for adjudicating this claim.
In such cases, remand for additional examination is the
appropriate remedy.  See Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90
(1990).

In that regard, it is also noted in private medical records on
file that the veteran has generalized osteoarthritis.  This has
not been properly evaluated, and should be prior to entry of a
decision in this case.

Finally, there is suggestion in the record that the veteran had
prostate impairment, and studies were to be conducted to rule out
cancer.  It is unclear whether those studies were performed.

In view of the foregoing, this case is REMANDED for the following
actions:

1.  The RO should contact the veteran to
ascertain whether he has had any medical
treatment since 1991 for any disability.
If so, his assistance as needed in
obtaining copies of the records should be
solicited.  Records obtained should be
associated with the claims folder.

2.  The veteran should be scheduled for VA
medical and ophthalmological examinations.
The medical examination should contain
orthopedic studies detailing impairment
caused by any arthritis found; prostate
studies to ascertain any impairment; and,
cardiovascular studies and pulmonary
studies to evaluate stamina and edema as
well as cardiovascular status.  The
ophthalmological examination should
ascertain visual acuity as well as measure
the visual fields.  All indicated tests
should be performed and all clinical
findings should be reported in detail.  The
claims folder should be made available to
the examiners for review prior to the
examinations.

When the aforementioned development has been accomplished the
case should be reviewed by the RO.  In the event the benefits
sought are not granted, the veteran and his representative should
be provided with a supplemental statement of the case and
afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond thereto.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further
appellate consideration.  No action is required of the veteran
until he is notified.

          MICHAEL D. LYON
          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).