Citation Nr: 0002095 Decision Date: 01/27/00 Archive Date: 02/02/00 DOCKET NO. 97-29 479A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Wilmington, Delaware THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a personality disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Delaware Commission Of Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Theresa M. Catino, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active military duty from December 1995 to May 1997. This appeal arises from a June 1997 rating action of the Wilmington, Delaware, regional office (RO). In that decision, the RO denied service connection for a personality disorder. FINDING OF FACT The veteran has been diagnosed as having a personality disorder, not otherwise specified; no evidence has been presented to show that the personality disorder was caused or aggravated by service-connected disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW Service connection for a personality disorder is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1999). Congenital or developmental defects, refractive error of the eye, personality disorders, and mental deficiency as such are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9 (1999). However, service connection may be granted for disability resulting from a personality disorder that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.310(a), 4.127 (1999). This includes personality disorder that is aggravated by service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). A person who submits a claim for 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. Only if the claimant meets this burden does VA have the duty to assist him in developing the facts pertinent to his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997). If the claimant does not meet this initial burden, the appeal must fail because, in the absence of evidence sufficient to make the claim well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 14, 17 (1993). A well-grounded claim is a plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Such a claim need not be conclusive, but only possible, to satisfy the initial burden of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). To be well grounded, however, a claim must be accompanied by evidence that suggests more than a purely speculative basis for granting entitlement to the requested benefits. Dixon v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 261, 262-63 (1992). Evidentiary assertions accompanying a claim for VA benefits must be accepted as true for purposes of determining whether the claim is well grounded, unless the evidentiary assertion is inherently incredible or the fact asserted is beyond the competence of the person making the assertion. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992). Where the determinative issue involves medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible or possible is required. Murphy, 1 Vet. App. at 81. A claimant cannot meet this burden merely by presenting lay testimony, because lay persons are not competent to offer medical opinions. Espiritu, 2 Vet. App. at 495. In the present case, at a personal hearing conducted before a hearing officer at the RO in October 1997, the veteran asserted that service connection for the personality disorder was warranted because this condition originated during his active military duty. T. at 1-11. The veteran's service medical records show that he was seen in December 1996 for complaints of psychiatric symptoms. Following a mental status evaluation, the military clinical psychologist diagnosed a parent-child relational problem, an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, and narcissistic personality traits. Thereafter, in April 1997, the veteran requested psychiatric examination for emotional and anger problems. The assessment was a personality disorder. At the separation examination which was conducted in May 1997, a personality disorder was noted and the veteran was found not to be qualified for duty. Following a VA general medical evaluation and psychiatric examination in September 1997, a personality disorder was diagnosed. As the available medical records indicate, the veteran has a current diagnosis of a personality disorder. Significantly, the pertinent regulation provides that personality disorders are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c) (1999). Disability resulting therefrom may not be service connected unless it is the result of already service-connected disability as provided for in 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). 38 C.F.R. § 4.127. What is significant about the evidence of record is, paradoxically, what it does not include. It does not include any competent medical evidence showing a relationship to service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Absent the presentation of evidence to make the veteran's claim well grounded within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a), the claim of service connection must be denied as not well grounded. 38 C.F.R. § 4.127. ORDER Service connection for a personality disorder is denied. MARK F. HALSEY Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals