BVA9506506 DOCKET NO. 93- 10 291 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a vascular condition involving the legs. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from October 1956 to December 1959. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 1993 decision of the RO which denied the claim of service connection for a vascular condition involving the legs. In that decision, the RO determined that new and material evidence had been submitted for the purpose of reopening the veteran's claim. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he was treated in service for blood clots in the legs. He feels that his current disability is related to the manifestations exhibited in service. 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 met the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that he has presented a well-grounded claim. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran is shown to have had acute thrombophlebitis of the right leg in February 1966, over seven years after service. 2. No competent evidence has been submitted to show that the veteran has a vascular disability involving either leg due to disease or injury in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran has not presented a well-grounded claim of service connection for a vascular condition involving the legs. 38 U.S.C.A.. §§ 1131, 5107, 7104 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION While the veteran's service medical records are not available for review in connection with the present appeal, the Board finds that all indicated development of the evidentiary record has been undertaken. The submitted medical evidence consists of clinical record referable to treatment received by the veteran in 1966 and 1967. Records of claimed treatment could not be obtained from other indicated sources. Thus, the Board must base its review on the evidence of record. These submitted records show that the veteran was hospitalized in February 1966 for acute thrombophlebitis of the right leg. This was manifested by marked tenderness in the right calf. Other records deal with treatment received by the veteran for unrelated conditions in October 1966 and June 1967. The only pertinent information in these documents pertained to previous admissions and reflected that he had had acute thrombophlebitis in February 1966. The veteran asserts in connection with the present appeal that he was hospitalized for blood clots of the legs while on active service. In support of this position, the veteran has also presented lay statements from his father and sister to the effect that he had started having "trouble" with his "leg" while stationed at Fort Eustis, Virginia. While obtained personnel records indicate that the veteran was sick in the hospital at Fort Eustis, Virginia in May and June 1957, the nature of illness requiring treatment is not shown. This evidence does not serve to establish that the veteran had a vascular disability with respect to either leg in service or earlier than seven years thereafter. In addition, the veteran has submitted no competent evidence to support his lay assertions that he has current vascular disability involving either leg which is due to disease or injury in service. In this regard, the United States Court of Veterans Appeals has observed "that establishing service connection requires a finding of the existence of a current disability and a determination of a relationship between that disability and an injury or disease incurred in service or some other manifestation of the disability during [service]." Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 542, 548 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141,143 (1992). The unsupported lay assertions presented by the veteran concerning such questions of medical diagnosis or causation are not competent evidence for the purpose of presenting a plausible or well-grounded claim. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494-95 (1992). Accordingly, the veteran has failed to submit evidence of a well- grounded claim of service connection. See Grottveit, 5 Vet.App. at 92; Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 610-11 (1992). In the absence of such evidence, the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993); Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136, 139 (1994). ORDER As well-grounded claim for service connection for a vascular disorder of the legs has not been presented, the appeal is dismissed. The RO should take appropriate action consistent with this decision. STEPHEN L. WILKINS 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.