BVA9507751 DOCKET NO. 93-16 203 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left hand condition. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C.A. Skow, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from April 1941 to October 1942. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from a February 1993 rating decision of the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (VARO). CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The appellant contends that he sustained an injury to his right knee when he fell off a truck during maneuvers in service. He further contends that, shortly after recovering from his right knee injury, he sustained a fracture of both hands when he lost his balance and fell. 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 evidence is against service connection for a right knee and left hand condition. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The appellant served on active duty from April 1941 to October 1942. 2. Service medical records are negative for complaints or findings related to either a right knee or left hand injury. Service separation examination dated April 1942 showed no abnormalities of the right knee or left hand. 3. The evidence of record is negative for post-service medical treatment of a right knee or left hand condition. 4. There is no objective evidence of record to establish the presence of a chronic right knee and left hand condition related to the appellant's period of service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A right knee condition was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994). 2. A left hand condition was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Initially, the Board finds that the appellant has submitted evidence which is sufficient to justify a belief that his claim is well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991) and Murphy v Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). Furthermore, the undersigned believes that this case has been adequately developed for appellate purposes by VARO and that a disposition on the merits is in order. Background A review shows the service medical records are negative for complaints and findings related to either a right knee or left hand injury in service. Induction examination report dated April 1941 reflects that the appellant's right lower extremity was normal upon entrance into active duty. A treatment record dated December 1941 shows that the appellant sustained a fracture of a finger on his right hand after he slipped and fell. At that time, there was no indication that a prior leg injury had contributed to this accident or that he had fractured his left hand. Other treatment reports are similarly negative for an injury to the right knee and left hand. Report of separation examination dated April 1942 noted that the appellant's extremities were normal, and there was no indication that the appellant had imbalance due to a knee injury or had sustained a fracture of the left hand. In 1947, the appellant filed a claim to service connection for heart disease and a left wrist fracture. At that time, the appellant did not indicate having sustained either an injury to the right knee or to the hands. In November 1987, the appellant filed a claim to service connection for a disability of the right leg and hands. By rating action dated December 1988, the appellant was granted service connection for a fractured finger of the right hand; however, he was denied service connection for a right leg condition. In further support of his claim, the appellant gave sworn testimony at a personal hearing in July 1989 and August 1991, submitted three lay statements between June and November 1991 from three fellow servicemen, and provided an x-ray study taken in February 1988 of his hands. With respect to the lay statements, each serviceman essentially indicated that he had personal knowledge the appellant broke his right leg and fractured his hands during service. In November 1991, VARO confirmed and continued its prior rating action which denied service connection for the right leg and, in October 1992, the Board also denied the appellant's claim to service connection for a right leg condition. In November 1992, the appellant requested that VARO reopen his claim to service connection of the right leg and left hand. In December 1992, a personal hearing was conducted at VARO and the testimony given by the appellant was essentially similar to that previously given in July 1989 and August 1991. The appellant testified that he sustained a fracture of the right knee when he fell off a truck in service. He indicated that he was taken to a first aid facility in Tortuguero, Puerto Rico, and had his right leg placed in a cast. After the cast was removed, the appellant was reportedly assigned to kitchen duty, at which time, he sustained fractures of both hands when he lost his balance and fell. At his hearing in December 1992, the appellant claimed that he would have filed a claim for compensation with the VA earlier but he had been improperly originally issued a blue discharge upon separation from service which disqualified him from VA benefits, and that it was not until 1977 that his discharge was upgraded to permit basic eligibility for VA benefits. By rating action dated February 1993, VARO found that the new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the appellant's claim to service connection of the right knee and left hand had been submitted. At the same time, VARO denied the appellant's claim to service connection of the right leg and left hand in view of the evidence of record. Analysis Service-connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated while on active duty. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 1991). Furthermore, for a chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from mere isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word "chronic." Continuity of symptomatology is required where the condition noted during service is not, in fact shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1994). In evaluating the evidence of record, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against the appellant's claim to service connection for a right leg and left hand condition. The Board notes that, while service medical records reflect the appellant was treated on several occasions between 1941 and 1942, there was no indication of a fracture or other injury to the right leg, including the knee, or the left hand. Furthermore, service separation examination dated April 1942 showed no abnormalities of the right leg or left hand and the evidence of record contains no post-service treatment records for a right leg or left hand condition related to service. After review of the entire evidence of record including the appellant's statements and the sworn lay statements of fellow servicemen, each of whom indicated that he observed the appellant's right leg and left hand injury, the Board concludes that they are of insufficient probative value to serve as the basis for service connection when weighed in light of the lack of objective findings of either an injury in service or chronic residual disability that may reasonably be associated with the reported injuries during service. Furthermore, the lack of documented findings of right leg or left hand condition soon after separation from service coupled with the lack of complaints, findings or manifestations of pertinent symptomatology in service weigh against a finding that a chronic right leg or left hand disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1994), see Mense v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 354 (1991). Accordingly, the Board finds that a right knee and left hand condition was not incurred in service. ORDER Service connection for a right knee condition is denied. Service connection for a left hand condition is denied. C.P. RUSSELL 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.