BVA9502038 DOCKET NO. 92-15 160 ) 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 prostate disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD John D. Nachmann, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from December 1983 to September 1990. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of February and August 1991 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) San Juan, Puerto Rico, Regional Office (RO). CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that the RO was incorrect in not granting his claims of entitlement to service connection for prostate and heart disorders. The veteran maintains that service connection for these disorders is warranted as they were incurred during active service. Therefore, he requests favorable determinations by the Board. 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 veteran has not submitted well-grounded claims of entitlement to service connection for prostate and heart disorders. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. A chronic prostate disorder has not been clinically manifested. 3. A heart disorder has not been clinically manifested. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The veteran has not submitted a well-grounded claim of entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1993). 2. The veteran has not submitted a well-grounded claim of entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1131, 1133, 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The threshold question to be answered with respect to the veteran's request for service connection for prostate and heart disorders is whether he has presented well-grounded claims; that is, claims which are plausible and capable of substantiation. If he has not presented well-grounded claims, his appeal must fail and there is no duty to assist him in the development of his claims because such additional development would be futile. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). As will be explained below, the Board finds that the veteran's claims are not well grounded. I. Prostate Disorder The service medical records indicate that the veteran complained of slow flowing urination in June 1990. At that time, the veteran also reported that he occasionally experienced problems with initiating urination. No burning, discomfort, dribbling, blood, or white mucous was noted. The report of a June 1990 service medical examination reveals that the veteran's prostate was tender as well as larger than expected and would be treated as prostatitis. In July 1990, the veteran reported that he no longer had any problems with urination. A diagnosis of resolved prostatitis was recorded at that time as well as in August 1990. The report of a December 1990 VA genitourinary examination contains a diagnosis of a history of acute prostatitis, resolved. In his June 1991 substantive appeal, the veteran indicated that he had not experienced a recurrence of his prostate symptoms. During his January 1992 personal hearing, the veteran testified that he was treated for prostatitis on two separate occasions during service. He further stated that he experienced pain when urinating, occasional inability to urinate, and pressure. The veteran reported that as a result of this condition, he was on a high fiber diet. Lastly, the veteran noted that although he had mentioned his symptoms to his doctors, no further action had been taken. Given all of the foregoing, the Board finds that the veteran has not presented a well-grounded claim of entitlement to service connection for prostatitis. In this regard, the Board notes that the prostatitis that the veteran experienced during service was acute and transitory and did not result in a chronic disability as it was noted to have been resolved on two occasions during service and on an additional occasion approximately three months following the veteran's separation from service. Although the veteran testified that he continued to experience prostatitis symptoms subsequent to his discharge from service, such testimony is not supported by the objective clinical evidence of record or his June 1991 substantive appeal. In the absence of proof of a present disability, a valid claim cannot be established. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 223, 225 (1992). Since the evidence of record indicates that the veteran's prostatitis was resolved during active service, there is no basis upon which to grant service connection for this disorder. Consequently, the veteran's claim must be dismissed. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5); Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993). II. Heart Disorder The service medical records indicate that a May 1985 electrocardiogram (ECG) revealed sinus bradycardia with sinus arrhythmia and early repolarization. In December 1985, the veteran sought treatment for left-sided chest pain of variable intensity. The veteran's heart rate was normal and no gallop was noted. A diagnosis of chest pain without a clear etiology was recorded. In a June 1990 report of medical history, the veteran indicated that he experienced heart palpitations. The report of a June 1990 service medical examination shows that the veteran was instructed to receive follow-up treatment if his palpitations increased in frequency or were not resolved in two weeks. The veteran followed-up in July 1990 and an assessment of palpitations possibly secondary to anxiety was recorded. A July 1990 ECG revealed a normal sinus rhythm. In August 1990, an assessment of costochondritis of the left hemithorax was recorded. During a December 1990 VA examination, an ECG was performed which revealed sinus bradycardia but no other abnormalities. X-rays revealed no evidence of acute cardiac, pleural, or pulmonary pathology. In March and November 1991, the veteran sought treatment for heart palpitations and chest pains at two different private facilities. The report of a May 1991 VA cardiology evaluation shows that the veteran had a normal sinus rhythm, no murmurs or clicks and normal S1 and S2 as well as no S3 or S4. In addition, no hepatomegaly was found. The examiner indicated that the veteran did not have any significant heart disease. During his January 1992 personal hearing, the veteran testified that he was treated for high blood pressure in April 1991. He indicated that, at that time, he was placed on medication for two days until his blood pressure returned to normal. Given all of the foregoing, the Board finds that the veteran has not presented a well-grounded claim of entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder. In particular, the Board notes that the veteran has never been diagnosed with a heart disorder. Although electrocardiograms have revealed sinus bradycardia, sinus arrhythmia, and early repolarization, these findings constitute symptoms and not acceptable diagnoses of a heart disorder for which service connection can be awarded. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.100 (1993). Since the veteran has failed to present proof of a present disability, his claim of entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder must be dismissed. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5); Boeck, 6 Vet.App. at 17; Brammer, 3 Vet.App. at 225. ORDER The claim of entitlement to service connection for a prostate disorder is dismissed. The claim of entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is dismissed. WARREN W. RICE, JR. 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.