BVA9505837 
DOCKET NO.  92-56 004     )       DATE
          )
          )

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

THE ISSUES

1.  Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle
disability.

2.  Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to
reopen a claim for service connection of a back disability.

3.  Entitlement to an increased rating for fibrotendinitis of the
right foot, rated as 10 percent disabling.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. Andrew Ahlberg, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from May 1972 to May 1975.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(hereinafter Board) on appeal from adverse rating action by the
St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (hereinafter RO).  A
November 1992 Board remand referred the veteran's case to the RO
for additional development.

REMAND

In his August 1994 informal hearing presentation to the Board,
the veteran's representative contended that because the veteran
indicated that he had undergone an electromyogram (EMG) at a VA
medical facility, the RO should have obtained the results of this
procedure.  The reports from the January 1993 VA examination
conducted pursuant to the direction of the Board in its November
1992 Remand indicated that an EMG was to be scheduled.

The veteran's representative has also contended that the January
1993 VA examination was insufficient because the examiner failed
to comment on the "causal relationship" between the additional
disabilities shown on that examination and the veteran's military
service and/or his service connected right foot disability.  Such
an opinion by the examiner was requested by the Board in its
November 1992 remand.

Evidence of record also suggests that the veteran's failure to
report to a scheduled VA neurologic examination may have been the
result of the fact that he never received notice of such an
examination because he had moved and the notice was sent to his
previous address.  The veteran's representative thus requests
that the veteran again be scheduled for a VA neurologic
examination.

The Board concurs with the veteran's representative contentions
as to the need to accomplish the requested development.
Therefore, this case is REMANDED for the following development:

1.  The RO is to obtain the results of the
EMG referenced by the veteran and said to
have been scheduled on a report from the
January 1993 VA examination.

2.  The veteran is to be afforded VA
orthopedic and neurologic examinations.
The examiners are to comment on the
relationship between any lower extremity
disorders shown and in-service
symptomatology or pathology.  An opinion by
the examiners as to the relationship
between any such lower extremity disorders
and the veteran's service-connected
fibrotendinitis of the right foot is also
requested.  In addition, the examiners
should specify the degree of limitation of
motion, if any, caused by fibrotendinitis
of the right foot.  The claims file should
be made available to the examiners for
their use in the study of this case.

Following completion of the requested development, the RO should
review the evidence and determine whether the veteran's claims
may be granted.  If any of the veteran's claims continue to be
denied, the veteran and his representative should be issued a
supplemental statement of the case, to include citations to the
relevant laws and regulations as needed, and the case should be
returned to the Board for further appellate review of this issue.
The purpose of this REMAND is to assist the veteran in the
development of his appeal, and the Board does not intimate an
opinion, either legal or factual, as to the ultimate disposition
warranted in this case.  No action is required of the veteran
until he is notified.

          HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN
          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).