BVA9501396 DOCKET NO. 93-08 437 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for malaria. 2. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for malaria. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James A. Pritchett, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1942 to October 1945. This appeal arises from an April 1992 decision by the Chicago, Illinois, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that established service connection for malaria, with an effective service connection date of March 1992, but evaluated the condition as noncompensable. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL It is contended, in essence, that the veteran should be awarded a compensable evaluation for malaria because he was treated for malaria while in active service and that other veterans receive compensation for residuals of malaria. It is asserted that the veteran submitted a claim for service connection for malaria in October 1945. 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 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 appellant has not met the initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim for a compensable evaluation for malaria is well-grounded. It is the decision of the Board that the appellant has not met the initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for malaria is well-grounded. 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 has not reported any current malaria related pathology. 3. No claim for service connection for malaria was submitted prior to March 1992. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant has not submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION I. Increased (Compensable) Evaluation for Malaria The threshold question to be answered in this case is whether the veteran has presented evidence of a well-grounded claim; that is, one which is plausible. If he has not presented a well-grounded claim, his appeal must fail and there is no duty to assist him further in the development of his claim because such development would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. As will be explained below, the Board finds that his claim is not well-grounded. Malaria falls under the purview of 38 C.F.R. § 4.88 (1993), which states that malaria, once identified by clinical and laboratory methods, or by clinical methods alone where the disease is endemic, is rated on the basis of the clinical course of the disease, the frequency and severity of recurrences, and the necessity for and the reaction to medication, not the presence or absence of parasites. When there have been relapses following the initial course of treatment, further relapses are to be expected and for some time the veteran must be given the benefit of the doubt as to unexplained fever of short duration, controlled by medication specific for malaria. With regard to evaluations for malaria, which are evaluated under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.88a, Diagnostic Code (Code) 6304 (1993), the governing regulation states that the evaluations are to be assigned on the basis of dates and frequency of recurrences and relapses and severity of significant residuals, if any, based on the clinical records of the service department or other acceptable evidence relating to the period of service, or on medical evidence relating to the period after discharge, recording sufficient clinical findings, when considered in accordance with all other data of record, to support the conclusion that there exists a compensable or higher degree of disability from malaria. Service connection will not be conceded based on notation in service records of history alone furnished by the veteran, nor will compensable ratings be assigned based on the veteran's unsupported claim or statement. The evidence of others under oath may be accepted to establish frequency of relapses or recurrences over a period of 1 year only, from date of last medically confirmed relapse or recurrence in service or subsequently. In the instant case, the veteran has failed to submit evidence or even state that his malaria has any current symptoms or manifestations. In fact, in his original VA Application for Compensation or Pension (VA Form 21-526) dated in March 1992, the veteran stated that he had malaria from 1943 on and off until his separation from active service. In his Appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals dated in August 1992, the veteran merely stated that he had malaria while in active service and that he knew of other veterans who had received compensable evaluations for malaria. While he also stated that he "had problems" after he returned home, he has offered no evidence that he now experiences any residuals of malaria, and acknowledges that he has no proof of such treatment. A well-grounded claim requires more than an allegation; the claimant must submit supporting evidence. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). At a minimum, some evidence of some residual impairment is required for the assignment of a compensable rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. For the above reasons, the Board finds that the appellant's claim is not well-grounded and therefore should be dismissed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. II. Earlier Effective Date In the instant case, the veteran alleges that he submitted a claim for service connection for malaria in October 1945 and that he forgot about it until 1992. The record contains a Request for Army Information dated in November 1946. The request indicates that a claim had been submitted to a VA medical facility for medical treatment and that the disability alleged was related to the genitourinary system and not to malaria. A rating decision dated in January 1947 denied the claim regarding residuals of urethritis acute, gonorrheal and cystitis, chronic, mild. The rating decision contains no reference to malaria. A rating decision dated in March 1948 continued the previous denial. This decision is also negative for mention of malaria. The decision contains a handwritten note indicating that no VA Form 21-526, the form which would be utilized for a claim for service connection for malaria for compensation purposes, was on file. The veteran alleges that he submitted a claim for malaria in 1945. However, the record indicates that the only claim submitted prior to 1992 was the one noted above. The claim had been decided in January 1947 and again in March 1948. There is no evidence in the file to substantiate the veteran's allegation that a malaria claim had been submitted. The veteran has alleged a factual issue; that he submitted a claim. He has submitted no evidence to substantiate his allegation. There is a record of a claim in the time frame he alleges, but it is for an entirely different condition and purpose. As stated previously, a well-grounded claim requires more than an allegation; the claimant must submit supporting evidence. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). For the above reasons, the Board finds that the appellant's claim is not well-grounded and therefore should be dismissed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. ORDER The appeal of the noncompensable rating for malaria is dismissed. The appeal for an earlier effective date is dismissed. ROBERT D. PHILIPP 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.