BVA9501985 DOCKET NO. 93-19 764 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. W. Fabian, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty for training from March 1961 to September 1961. CONTENTION OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he has had back problems off and on since his back was injured during service in 1961. 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 claim file. 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 veteran's claim for service connection for a low back disorder is not well grounded. FINDING OF FACT There is no competent medical evidence in file showing that the veteran has a low back disability that began during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for a back disorder is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The threshold question that must be resolved with regard to the claim is whether the veteran has presented evidence that the claim is well grounded. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). A well grounded claim is a plausible claim, meaning a claim that appears to be meritorious. See Murphy, 1 Vet.App. at 81. An allegation of a disorder that is service connected is not sufficient; the veteran must submit evidence in support of the claim that would "justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible." See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992). In order for the veteran to be granted service connection for a back disorder, there must be evidence both of a service connected disease or injury and a present disability which is attributable to such disease or injury. See Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 143 (1992). In the absence of evidence indicating the presence of a disorder, a claim for service connection is not plausible and is, therefore, not well grounded. Id at 144. In determining whether a claim is well grounded, the supporting evidence is presumed to be true. See King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19, 21 (1993). This rule does not apply, however, if the evidence is inherently incredible or a fact is asserted that is beyond the competence of the person making the statement. Id. A lay person is not competent to make a medical diagnosis or to relate a medical disorder to a specific cause. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494 (1992). Therefore, lay statements regarding medical diagnosis or causation cannot constitute evidence to make a claim well grounded under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). If the veteran fails to submit evidence in support of a plausible claim, the VA is under no duty to assist the veteran in any further development of the claim. Id. Furthermore, a claim that is not well grounded must be dismissed because it does not present a question of fact or law over which the Board has jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5); See also Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993). In this case, the veteran's service medical records show that in July 1961 he was treated for a low back strain. He was returned to duty three days later but restricted for three weeks from running, jumping, physical training for the lower extremities, and from lifting over 30 pounds. The strain was described as temporary. The veteran reported no injuries on the examination on termination of active duty. The veteran did not submit any evidence supporting his contention that he has a current back disorder that is causally related to the back injury that he received while on active duty. On the compensation claim filed in April 1992 the veteran failed to list any medical treatment for a back disorder. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), however, arranged for the veteran to undergo two VA examinations. The report of the general examination states that the physical examination of all body systems was completely normal; the examiner's impression noted the history of back injuries. The report of the orthopedic examination states that the range of motion of the spine was full without radicular symptoms. The straight leg raising test was negative bilaterally. Gait and station were normal. Motor strength testing was 5/5 in the lower extremities and the right upper extremity, but 5 minus left grip and 5 minus left biceps. Sensory examination was negative for abnormalities. Deep tendon reflexes were 2+, bilateral and symmetrical in the upper and lower extremities. There was no clonus or Hoffman sign. The toes responded properly to plantar stimulation. The veteran had no Tinel's or phalens signs and no signs of myelopathy. The veteran refused to have current X-rays taken. The orthopedic examiner stated as his impression that "it appears that his low back discomfort does arise temporally from an incident in active duty service." Significantly, the specialist, at most, noted that there may be discomfort at certain, unknown times. Thus, while there is reference to a vague and transient symptom, there is no diagnosis of a disability or underlying pathology that would account for the subjective complaint. All medical findings on post-service examinations were normal. In order for a grant of service connection, there must be evidence both of a service-connected disease or injury and a present disability which is attributable to such disease or injury. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(24), (106), 1131(West 1991); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 143 (1992). The veteran's statement that he has a current back disability that is attributable to the injury that he received while on active duty is not competent evidence of medical diagnosis or causation for the reasons cited above. Because no competent evidence has been submitted that the veteran has a back disability that is related to service, his claim is not plausible and is, therefore, not well-grounded. Accordingly, the veteran's claim for service connection for a back disorder must be dismissed due to the Board's lack of jurisdiction. ORDER The claim for service connection for a back disorder is dismissed. M. SABULSKY 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.