BVA9501897 DOCKET NO. 90-03 988 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for liver disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for spleen disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for skin disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and M. F. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James L. March, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from November 1967 to June 1971. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington. In October 1990, the Board remanded the case to be held in abeyance pending the implementation of new regulatory criteria applicable to claims based upon Agent Orange exposure. It should be noted that the veteran requested the RO to reopen claims for post-traumatic stress disorder and tinnitus. In November 1991, the RO denied the request finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted. However, the representative again raised the post- traumatic stress disorder issue in his December 1994 informal hearing presentation. This issue has not been developed for appellate consideration so it will not be decided herein; however, it is referred to the RO for appropriate action. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran, in essence, contends that his exposure to Agent Orange during service in Vietnam resulted in his development of cirrhosis, hepatitis, spleen disability, and skin disability. The veteran also claims that he developed liver disability while he was serving on active duty. 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 failed to meet the initial burden of submitting evidence of well-grounded claims for service connection for liver disability, including cirrhosis and hepatitis, spleen disability, and skin disability. FINDING OF FACT The claims for service connection for liver, spleen and skin disabilities are not plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant has not submitted evidence of well-grounded claims for service connection for liver disability, including cirrhosis and hepatitis, spleen disability, and skin disability. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Initially, one who submits a claim for benefits under a law administered by VA has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well-grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Only when that initial burden has been met does the duty of the Secretary to assist such a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim attach. Id. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has further defined a well-grounded claim as a "plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation." Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). It has also held that where a determinative issue involves a medical diagnosis or medical causation, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible is required. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93(1993). Here, the veteran contends that liver disability, including cirrhosis and hepatitis, spleen disability, and skin disability are due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. There is no medical evidence suggesting the presence of any of the claimed disabilities during service or until years thereafter, nor is there any medical evidence linking any of the claimed disabilities to the veteran's exposure to Agent Orange during service or to any other incident of service. While the veteran testified in April 1989 that someone in service told him that he had a liver disease which was similar to hepatitis, there is no clinical evidence of liver disease in service. Moreover, with the exception of chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, none of the veteran's claimed disabilities is subject to presumptive service connection based upon Agent Orange exposure. While the veteran reported at a May 1989 VA psychiatric examination that he had discolored spots on his body, neither chloracne nor any other skin disorder was diagnosed on that examination or on a VA general medical examination performed in May 1989. Moreover, there is no other medical evidence of record suggesting the presence of chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne. In light of these circumstances, the Board must conclude that the veteran has failed to meet his initial burden of producing evidence of well- grounded claims. ORDER As the claims for entitlement to service connection for liver disability, including cirrhosis and hepatitis, spleen disability, and skin disability are not well-grounded, the appeal is dismissed. SHANE A. DURKIN 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.