BVA9503578 DOCKET NO. 93-09 297 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Wm. Thompson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from March 1942, to January 1946 in the United States Coast Guard. He also served approximately 12 years in the Navy reserves. This appeal arises from a February 1992 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) St. Louis, Missouri, Regional Office (RO) rating action denying service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends, in essence, that the RO erred in not finding that the evidence of record supports his claim for service connection for a nervous condition. He declares that the onset of his nervous problem occurred while in the Navy Reserves, in 1975, and that he was sent to a hospital for treatment. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims files. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not well-grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An acquired psychiatric disorder was not demonstrated during active military service. 2. VA psychological testing was conducted in November 1973; an acquired psychiatric disorder was not diagnosed. 3. On examination in April 1974, prior to release from the reserves, the veteran denied having or having had nervous trouble of any sort. 4. There is no objective medical evidence to associate the 1980's diagnosis of anxiety disorder with any active military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not well-grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14 (1993), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) held that A veteran claiming entitlement to VA benefits has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107, and Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609, 610-11 (1992). If a claim is not well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). The veteran is requesting service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. He has not claimed and the record does not show that he had an acquired psychiatric disorder during his active military service in the 1940's. It is contended that he developed a nervous problem during his reserve service, and that service connection is warranted pursuant to the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A.. § 101(24) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (1994). Personality disorders and mental deficiency are not diseases or injuries in the meaning of applicable legislation for disability compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. Part 4, § 4.9 (1994). A well-grounded claim is a plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). Although the claim need not be conclusive, it must be accompanied by supporting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible. See Tirpak. In this case, the appellant has failed to submit medical evidence of an acquired psychiatric disorder during his reserve service or any relationship between the anxiety disorder diagnosed in the 1980's and any incident related to active duty or inactive duty for training during the reserves. The Board emphasizes that the veteran has not advanced any contention associating his nervous condition with a period of active duty for training or inactive duty for training while in the reserves. Instead, he merely associates his nervousness with being put out of the reserves. Because of the nature of his contentions, and the evidence of record, it is not necessary at this time to determine the veteran's actual periods of active duty or inactive duty for training during his time in the reserves. In hearing testimony in October 1992, the veteran reported that he started getting nervous in "1975" when he was "washed out" of the reserves. He stated that he was sent to a VA hospital when all kinds of tests were performed, and a psychiatrist told him he was "schizophrenic and everything". The objective evidence of record shows that the veteran was found physically unfit for retention in the naval reserves in April 1974. He was evaluated in a Navy regional medical center in November and December 1974 in regard to his physical disability. In December 1974 he was discharged involuntarily by reason of not being physically qualified because of left wrist arthritis, with limitation of motion. Concurrent with the above, the veteran was seen at a VA outpatient facility from February to December 1973, in regard to his service-connected left wrist disability. In November 1973 he was provided psychological testing. The psychological profile indicated a personality prone to somatic symptoms of a hypochondriacal or psychophysiologic type. There was no reference to "schizophrenia" or any acquired psychiatric disorder. VA clinic records for the veteran from 1980 to 1982, and 1985 show that in February 1981 the veteran reported being nervous and having insomnia since 1973. Spontaneous panic attacks were also reported. The assessment was chronic anxiety with panic attacks. In March he was still complaining of nervousness during the day. The assessment was anxiety disorder. In August 1985 he complained of nervous difficulties due to arthritis. VA records for the veteran in 1991 and 1992 show that in July 1991 he was seen as a walk in at the mental health clinic (MHC) requesting psychotropic medication. It was recorded that he had seen a psychiatrist 4 years before, when his son died in an accident, and he was on "nerve" pills for a year. He indicated a problem with anxiety/anger control after he suffered his first myocardial infarction (MI) which was 4 years before. The veteran started attending MHC group health therapy in August 1991. In September it was recorded that the veteran still reported occasional nervous spells characterized by shaking hands. In November he complained of "anxiety attacks" described as episodes of shakiness and cold sweat, lasting 5 minutes, once a month. The assessment was anxiety disorder "NOS", rule out post traumatic stress disorder, rule out dysthymia. The veteran continued to be seen at the MHC in 1992, with diagnosis of anxiety disorder "NOS". Summary The veteran's service medical records, active and reserves, do not show an acquired psychiatric disorder. VA records do not show an acquired psychiatric disorder until the diagnosis of an anxiety disorder in 1981. In this case there is no objective medical evidence showing the existence of a current disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated while performing active duty for training or injury incurred or aggravated while performing inactive duty training. Since the evidence does not present a plausible basis for entitling him to service-connected disability compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(a), he has failed to submit a well-grounded claim under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). In light of Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994), purported adjudication of claims which are not well-grounded are a nullity in contemplation of law. ORDER Having found the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder not to be well-grounded, this issue is dismissed. RENÉE M. PELLETIER 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. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.