BVA9501686 DOCKET NO. 91-19 983 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for psoriasis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. L. Gann, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from November 1945 to April 1946, and from June 1947 to June 1950. This appeal arises from a rating decision dated in March 1990 of the Cleveland, Ohio, Regional Office, which denied entitlement to service connection for psoriasis. In March 1992, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded the case for additional evidentiary development. The case was thereafter returned to the Board, which denied service connection in a September 1993 decision. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court), however, issued a Memorandum Decision which vacated the Board's decision, and remanded the claim for readjudication pursuant to evidentiary considerations outlined by the Court. See [citation redacted]. The claims folder was returned and docketed at the Board in December 1994. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he suffers from psoriasis which was originally incurred during his second period of service. He asserts that he was treated for this skin disorder for several weeks while stationed in Korea, and that it has been chronic and continuous since service separation. DECISION OF THE BOARD The 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 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 preponderance of the evidence is against a grant of service connection for psoriasis. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran's service medical records are not available for review. 3. Letters from the veteran's wife and friends state that the veteran suffered from a skin disorder upon his return from service. The veteran proffered sworn testimony that he has suffered from psoriasis since service, and has primarily treated himself for this condition at home with non-prescription lotions. 4. Medical evidence demonstrating the presence of psoriasis is not shown until 1972, twenty-two years after service separation. CONCLUSION OF LAW Psoriasis was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), (d) (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Board notes that the veteran's claim is well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). 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). We are also satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed so that further assistance to the veteran is not required. Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991). In the absence of chronicity at onset, a grant of service connection requires evidence of continuity of symptomatology demonstrating that a current disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1994). Regulations also provide that service connection may be established where all the evidence of record, including that pertinent to service, demonstrates that the veteran's current disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1994). The veteran contends that his current psoriasis had its onset during service. Unfortunately, numerous attempts to secure service medical records have been fruitless. It appears that these records may have been lost in the fire which destroyed a portion of the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, in July 1973. Thus through no fault of his own, the veteran has no service medical records which can verify his allegations of treatment for a skin disorder in service. In light of the veteran's lay testimony regarding his experiences, however, we will accept his assertion that he was treated for a skin disorder during service. We note, however, that medical evidence showing symptomatology or treatment consistent with psoriasis is not shown until October 1972, more than 22 years after service. Private medical records from the veteran's treating physician, Dr. G. Hayes, indicate a diagnosis of "psoriasis," with treatment on a periodic basis thereafter. According to Dr. Hayes, the veteran uses a medicated lotion to relieve his symptoms. The record contains no medical evidence concerning the presence of a chronic skin condition from the time of service separation, in June 1950, to his first medical treatment shown in 1972. Lay statements have been submitted on the veteran's behalf, however, by his wife and several friends. [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] submitted letters in January 1990 stating that they were acquainted with the veteran in June 1950, at the time of service separation, and that he had psoriasis on his face and elbows. [redacted] indicated that he has known the veteran since 1938, and that the veteran did not have a skin condition prior to entering service. He noted that after service separation, the veteran had a skin disease on his arms, face, and forehead, which subsequently spread to other parts of the body. In her letter of January 1990, the veteran's wife stated that the couple married in January 1951, at which time the veteran had psoriasis all over his body. She indicated that this condition had been diagnosed by a doctor who is now deceased. In sworn testimony given in January 1992, the veteran indicated that his post-service employment included driving trucks for various companies. Although he alleges that he underwent various employment-related physical examinations which diagnosed the presence of psoriasis, these records are no longer available, inasmuch as his employers either went out of business, or the records were destroyed. He also reported that he sought private treatment from a physician whose name he no longer remembers, and who has since passed away. This physician prescribed a non- prescription lotion for relief of symptomatology. The veteran did not seek regular private treatment until the late 1960's, when he first reported his complaints to Dr. Hayes. Although we accept the veteran's contentions that he was treated for a skin disorder, claimed as psoriasis, during service, we do not find that the lay statements and testimony submitted provide sufficient positive evidence to demonstrate that a chronic or continuous skin disorder had its original onset in service. We note that the lay statements by [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] state only that the veteran suffered from psoriasis at the time he returned from service in June 1950. It does not appear, however, that any of these individuals possesses the medical expertise to assess the exact nature and diagnosis of the veteran's skin condition. Although we have acknowledged that the veteran may have been treated for a skin condition during service, without objective medical evidence or opinion, the conclusion that the disorder from which he suffered at service separation was "psoriasis" remains lay speculation, and is entitled to little weight. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992) (lay persons not competent to make medical diagnoses). More importantly, these statements do not address the status of the veteran's skin disorder at any time subsequent to June 1950, thus providing little probative evidence with regard to chronicity and continuity of the veteran's skin disorder since service. The same deficiencies are found in the statement made by the veteran's wife. Not only is she not medically qualified to opine that the veteran suffered from psoriasis at the time of the couple's marriage in January 1951 (Id.), but again we note that this account does not establish the chronicity and continuity of the veteran's claimed skin disorder after service. The lay statement given by [redacted] provides relevant evidence with regard to the veteran's dermatological status both before service, and immediately after separation. His observation concerning the spread of the veteran's skin disorder to "other parts of his body" is not, however, probative on the issue of whether this skin disorder has been continuous since service. We are unsure whether Mr. [redacted]'s information was acquired through observation or through subjective reports made to him by the veteran. Moreover, his statement is wholly vague with regard to the "time frame" involved in the spread of the veteran's skin disease. As previously stated, we have accepted the veteran's account of treatment for an unspecified skin disorder during service, and the lay statements support the conclusion that he suffered from a skin condition shortly after service separation. We also acknowledge that the veteran currently suffers from recurrent psoriasis. What remains unclear, however, is whether the skin disorder for which he was treated in service is linked to the psoriasis which was diagnosed in 1972, more than 20 years later. Mr. [redacted]'s statement does not provide clarification on this issue. We find the veteran's testimony of questionable value. His memory with regard to facts surrounding his in-service and post- service history appears to be uncertain. Although he could remember every location where he was stationed prior to his Korean service, as well as the length of time which he spent at each, he was unable to remember the name of the unit in Korea with which he served for eleven months, the company to which his unit was attached, or the name of the base where he was stationed. He could not remember the name of the clinic in Korea where he was treated every two to three weeks and he was not really sure how often he was treated. He also testified that, shortly after service, he sought treatment from a private physician. He could not, however, remember this physician's name, although he knew that the physician was deceased. At the time of his hearing, the veteran's representative acknowledged the veteran's memory lapses, but argued that enough information was provided so that additional records' searches could be made to verify both the in-service and post-service histories given during the hearing. We note, however, that record searches conducted following a remand by the Board found no such supporting information. Two of the veteran's post- service employers are no longer in business, and the Roadway Express trucking company, which employed the veteran for several years, did not maintain any personnel records which could verify that psoriasis was found during his periodic employee physical examinations, as he has alleged. No medical records from 1950 to 1972 are available, inasmuch as the only private physician to render treatment during that time period passed away many years ago. The veteran states that he primarily treated himself with non-prescription lotions, prior to seeking treatment from Dr. Hayes. We find that the veteran's allegations are outweighed by the absence of contemporaneous records which support his sworn statements. Inasmuch as the veteran's testimony was proffered more than 40 years after service, and as his memory for details was acknowledged by his own representative to be less than "crystal clear," we believe that the probative value of the sworn testimony is significantly diminished. While we have accepted the veteran's testimony regarding his in- service history, this act does not constrain us to accept the veteran's unsupported post-service history. The veteran cannot be held responsible for those records which are compiled and maintained for him by the service department, and their loss will not be held against him. We are not, however, bound to accept the veteran's uncorroborated accounts of his post-service history, particularly in light of the passage of time between the actual events attested to and the veteran's testimony concerning those events. Cf. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190 (1991). We conclude, therefore, that entitlement to service connection for psoriasis is not warranted. The preponderance of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, is against a finding that he currently suffers from a chronic skin condition which first arose in service. As a relative balance of positive and negative evidence has not been presented, the doctrine of benefit of the doubt is not for application. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b)(d) (1994). ORDER Entitlement to service connection for psoriasis is denied. JACK W. BLASINGAME 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.