Citation NR: 9729053	
Decision Date: 08/21/97		Archive Date: 08/26/97
DOCKET NO.  95-22 073	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in No. Little 
Rock, Arkansas


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of exposure 
to Agent Orange.


REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by:	Disabled American Veterans


WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

Appellant


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Gary E. O'Connor, Associate Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The appellant served on active duty from July 1968 to 
February 1970.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the 
Board) on appeal from a August 1994 rating decision of the 
North Little Rock, Arkansas, Department of Veterans Affairs 
(VA) Regional Office (RO).


REMAND

A private medical doctor, Dr. Gary L. McGrew, M.D., has 
indicated in the appellant’s clinical records that he has 
“Agent Orange dermatitis,” “Agent Orange chronic dermatitis,” 
or “Agent Orange disease.”  He did not diagnose the appellant 
as having one of the diseases associated with exposure to 
herbicide agents.  38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (1996).

This case is REMANDED for the following action:

1.  The RO is to obtain any records 
relating to treatment for any skin 
condition (1) at the VA medical center in 
Memphis, Tennessee on or about 1983, and 
(2) by Dr. Modelevsky, the appellant’s 
family physician.  All records or 
responses received to this inquiry should 
be associated with the claims folder.  
The RO should proceed with all reasonable 
follow-up referrals that may be indicated 
by this inquiry.  All attempts to obtain 
these records which are ultimately not 
obtained should be documented.

		2.  Following this development, the veteran should 
be
afforded a VA dermatology examination.  
The claims folder should be made 
available to the examiner for review 
before the examination.  The examiner 
should determine whether there is a 
current skin disability, to include, but 
not limited to, chloracne.  The examiner 
should render an opinion as to the likely 
etiology of any current skin disability.  
The examiner should respond to the 
following questions:  Based upon the 
evidence of record, is it as likely as 
not that any current skin disability is 
due to service, including exposure to 
Agent Orange?  Is the opinion of Dr. Gary 
L. McGrew, M.D. to the effect that the 
appellant has “Agent Orange dermatitis,” 
“Agent Orange chronic dermatitis,” or 
“Agent Orange disease” supportable?  The 
examiner should state the reasons for the 
opinions and confirm that the complete 
file was reviewed.

3.  The RO should review the VA 
examination report to determine if the 
examiner has complied with the 
instructions listed in paragraph 2.  If 
the findings noted in the examination 
report do not comport with these 
instructions, the RO should return the 
examination report and the claims folder 
for corrective action. 

3.  The General Counsel, in representing 
VA before the Court, has noted that the 
regional office has duties.  Pursuant to 
38 C.F.R. § 3.655, when the claimant 
without good cause fails to report for 
examination, the claim will be denied.  
However, the Secretary must show a lack 
of good cause for failing to report.  
Further, VA has a duty to fully inform 
the veteran of the consequences of the 
failure to undergo the scheduled 
examination.  The regional office must 
comply with all notification requirements 
regarding the duty to report and the 
failure to report for examination.  This 
Remand also serves as notice that there 
is a duty to report.

Upon completion of this development, the RO should 
readjudicate the issue of entitlement to service connection 
for residuals of exposure to Agent Orange.  If the decision 
remains adverse, the RO should furnish the veteran and his 
representative with a Supplemental Statement of the Case, and 
provide an adequate opportunity for reply.  The RO should 
thereafter return the claims folder to the Board for 
appellate review and consideration. 


This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment by the RO.  
The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the 
Board of Veterans’ Appeals or by the United States Court of 
Veterans Appeals for additional development or other 
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.  
See The Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. 
No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994), 38 U.S.C.A. 
§ 5101 (West Supp. 1997) (Historical and Statutory Notes).  
In addition, VBA’s ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, M21-1, Part 
IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all 
cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court.  
See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45 and 38.02-38.03.

		
	H. N. SCHWARTZ
	Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

38 U.S.C.A. § 7102 (West Supp. 1997) 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) 
(1996).
- 2 -