BVA9505247 
DOCKET NO.  91-49 714     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington,
West Virginia

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to an effective date prior to September 14, 1990 for
a 100 percent schedular disability evaluation for grand mal
seizures with associated headaches.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Inc.

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

J. T. Hutcheson, Associate Counsel

REMAND

The veteran had active military service from March 1942 to
January 1946 and from November 1947 to March 1952.  This matter
came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter "the
Board") on appeal from a May 1991 rating decision of the
Huntington, West Virginia Regional Office (hereinafter "the RO")
which increased the disability evaluation for the veteran's
service-connected grand mal seizures with associated headaches
from 40 to 100 percent effective as September 14, 1990.  In
October 1993, the Board remanded this appeal to the RO for
additional development of the record which included contacting
the Huntington, West Virginia Department of Veterans Affairs
(hereinafter "VA") Medical Center and requesting that it forward
copies of all available VA clinical documentation from the
Gainesville, Florida Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter
"VA") Medical Center reflecting treatment of the veteran between
February 1989 and February 1992 and from the Temple, Texas and
the Marlin, Texas VA Medical Centers reflecting treatment of the
veteran beginning in 1979 for incorporation into the record.  A
March 1994 VA Report of Contact indicates that a search of the
records of the Huntington, West Virginia VA Medical Center failed
to locate the requested clinical documentation.  A May 1994
written statement from the veteran denies that he was ever
treated at the Gainesville, Florida VA Medical Center.  The
veteran has been represented throughout this appeal by the
Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc.

The accredited representative's October 1994 Informal Brief of
Appellant in Appealed Case advances that the RO has not conducted
an exhaustive search for the requested VA treatment records and
requests that this appeal be again remanded to the RO in order to
permit a further search to be made.  In reviewing the claims
file, the Board observes that the RO has apparently not directly
contacted either the Temple, Texas VA Medical Center or the
Marlin, Texas VA Medical Centers and requested that all available
clinical documentation reflecting treatment of the veteran
beginning in 1979 be forwarded for incorporation into the record.
Such action would seem to fulfill the accredited representative's
request for an "exhaustive" search and would also be helpful in
resolving the issue raised by the instant appeal.

Additionally, the veteran has advanced contentions on appeal
which may be reasonably construed as a request to reopen his
claim of entitlement to disability compensation benefits under
the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 1991) for a heart
disorder as the result of VA hospitalization and treatment.  This
issue has neither been developed nor certified for review on
appeal.  This matter is referred to the attention of the RO for
appropriate action.

In light of the VA's duty to assist the veteran in the proper
development of his claim as mandated by the provisions of
38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 1991) and as interpreted by the
United States Court of Veterans Appeals (hereinafter "the
Court") in Littke v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 90, 92-93 (1990),
this case is REMANDED for the following action:

The RO should contact the Temple, Texas and
the Marlin, Texas VA Medical Centers and
request that all available clinical
documentation pertaining to treatment of
the veteran beginning in 1979 be forwarded
for incorporation into the record.

When the requested action has been completed, and if his claim
continues to be denied, the veteran should be afforded a
reasonable period of time in which to respond to a supplemental
statement of the case.  Thereafter, subject to current appellate
procedures, the case should be returned to the Board for further
appellate consideration if appropriate.  The veteran need not
take any action unless he is further informed.  The purpose of
this REMAND is to allow for further development of the record.
No inference should be drawn from it regarding the final
disposition of the veteran's claim.  While regretting the delay
involved in again remanding this case, it is felt that to proceed
with a decision on the merits at this time would, quite simply,
not withstand Court scrutiny.

          JEFF MARTIN
          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 is appealable to the Court.  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).