BVA9501890 DOCKET NO. 93-03 355 ) 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 prostatitis. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral macular retinopathy, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. 3. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral conjunctivitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Heather J. Harner INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1961 to September 1963. This appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) arises from rating decisions dated in October 1991 and February 1992 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends service connection is warranted for prostatitis. He contends as well that his bilateral macular retinopathy and conjunctivitis are more disabling than currently evaluated. He avers that both eye disorders have worsened. 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 grants of increased ratings for bilateral macular retinopathy and conjunctivitis. It is further the decision of the Board that the veteran has not met the initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that his claim for entitlement to service connection for prostatitis is well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is no evidence of any current disability associated with prostatitis. 2. The veteran does not currently exhibit residual symptoms resulting from macular retinopathy. 3. The veteran does not currently exhibit active conjunctivitis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Evidence of a well-grounded claim for entitlement to service connection for prostatitis has not been presented. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131, 5107 (West 1991). 2. An increased rating for macular retinopathy is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Code 6011 (1993). 3. An increased rating for bilateral conjunctivitis is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Code 6018 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Entitlement to service connection for prostatitis. The threshold question to be addressed is whether the veteran has presented a well-grounded claim for service connection. A well- grounded claim is one which would justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible. If a claim is not well grounded, the claim must fail and the VA has no further duty to assist the appellant because additional development would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990); Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). Service connection may be granted for any disability resulting from injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation in service of a pre-existing injury or disease. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991). Service connection may be established by demonstrating that the disability was first manifested during service and has continued since service to the present time or by showing that a disability which pre-existed service was aggravated during service. A well-grounded claim for service connection, therefore, is one which justifies a belief by a fair and impartial individual that it is plausible that the veteran's current disability was first manifested during service or was aggravated during service. A threshold requirement for the grant of service connection for any disability is that the disability claimed must be shown present. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has interpreted the requirement of current disability thus: Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110. In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 223, 225 (1992). Other than the veteran's claim "to establish service connection for a chronic prostatitis condition," he has presented no evidence to show that he suffers from a current disability. Additionally, there is no medical evidence contained in the file to demonstrate current prostatitis. VA examinations in 1972 and 1978 were negative for any genitourinary complaints or abnormalities. In the absence of current disability, the Board must dismiss the veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for prostatitis. Entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral macular retinopathy, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. Initially, we note that the veteran's claim for entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral macular retinopathy is well grounded. By this, we mean that he has submitted a claim which is plausible. We further conclude the VA has met its statutory duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim, and that no further assistance is required to satisfy the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings which is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1993). When there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (1993). During the veteran's period of service, he suffered from chorioretinitis of the right eye and obstruction of the nasal lacrimal duct of the left eye. He underwent intubation of the left nasal lacrimal duct with a polyethylene tube and dacryocystorhinostomy of the left eye. Retinal scarring on the right was noted on the VA examination in 1972. Service connection was granted for a retinal scar on the right, assigned a 20 percent disability rating, and for chronic conjunctivitis, assigned a noncompensable evaluation. On the VA examination in August 1977, bilateral macular retinopathy and bilateral conjunctivitis were noted. Upon a showing of improvement, the rating assigned for the veteran's bilateral macular retinopathy was reduced to 10 percent in 1978. Absent other disability, localized retinal scars with irregular, duplicated enlarged, or diminished image will be rated as 10 percent disabling. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Code 6011 (1993). VA outpatient treatment reports contained in the veteran's claims file reflect the prescription of eyeglasses. The VA ophthalmologic examination performed in June 1992 for purposes of this claim indicates the veteran suffers from slightly impaired visual acuity, visual field deficit, and glaucoma but does not reflect any other disability. His corrected visual acuity for near vision was 20/25, right, and 20/25, left, and for far vision was 20/30, right, and 20/30, left. When vision in both eyes is greater than 20/40, a noncompensable evaluation is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84. Absent evidence of residual symptoms related to the scarring or increased loss of visual acuity, we hold that a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for macular retinopathy is not warranted. Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral conjunctivitis. Initially, we note that the veteran's claim for entitlement to an increased rating for bilateral conjunctivitis is well grounded. By this, we mean that he has submitted a claim which is plausible. We further conclude that the VA has met its statutory duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim and that no further assistance is required to satisfy the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). The veteran suffered from chronically inflamed conjunctiva during service. He applied for and was granted service connection for conjunctivitis in 1972. A zero percent disability rating was assigned at that time. The regulatory rating schedule provides that conjunctivitis which has healed shall be rated on any residual symptoms. If there are no residual symptoms, the appropriate rating is zero percent. 38 C.F.R. § 4.84a, Code 6018 (1993). VA outpatient treatment reports contained in the veteran's claims file reflect the prescription of eyeglasses but no treatment for or indication of conjunctivitis or any infection. The VA ophthalmologic examination performed in June 1992 for purposes of this claim indicates the veteran suffers from slightly impaired visual acuity, visual field deficit, and glaucoma but does not reflect any recent or current conjunctivitis. Absent evidence of active conjunctivitis or residual symptoms, we hold that a disability rating in excess of 0 percent for conjunctivitis is not warranted. With regard to both service-connected eye disabilities, we note that the veteran's claims file contains a statement signed by the VA Chief of the Ophthalmology Section, in which it is stated that "The glaucoma diagnosed in (the veteran) has no relation, direct or indirect, with his previous diagnoses of conjunctivitis or retina scars." Consideration has also been given to the potential application of the various provisions of 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4, whether or not they were raised by the veteran, as required by Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589 (1991). In particular, we find that the evidence discussed above does not suggest that the veteran's service-connected disabilities present such an exceptional or unusual disability picture as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards so as to warrant an assignment of an extraschedular evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) (1993). For example, the disabilities do not require frequent periods of hospitalization, nor do they present marked interference with employment that is not already contemplated by the current evaluation. ORDER The veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for prostatitis is dismissed. Increased ratings for bilateral macular retinopathy and bilateral conjunctivitis are denied. V. L. JORDAN 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.