BVA9502444 DOCKET NO. 93-06 972 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for prostatitis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for retinal hemorrhage of the right or left eye. 3. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral glaucoma. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jeffrey J. Schueler, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had qualifying active service for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) purposes in the United States Merchant Marine at various times between December 1943 and August 1945. The regional office (RO) specifically verified the periods from December 22, 1943 to March 2, 1944; April 13, 1944 to September 29, 1944; and July 23, 1945 to August 1, 1945. The veteran submitted a DD Form 214 that referred to active service from December 12, 1944 to January 12, 1945, and he requested recognition of that period of service; the RO did not respond to that request. For the reasons outlined below, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) dismisses the veteran's claims without reaching the question of whether the veteran had qualifying active service during the additional period which he requested. In a November 1991 statement, the veteran discussed psychiatric treatment he received during service, and, in a March 1993 argument, the veteran's representative discussed a kidney disorder and an undefined bilateral eye disorder, presumably other than retinal hemorrhage. In an undated statement, the veteran described a back injury during service. The record does not show that these matters have been developed or adjudicated and the RO should take appropriate action with respect to these matters. The RO originally addressed the issue of entitlement to service connection for retinal hemorrhage of the left eye, and a statement of the case was provided to the veteran on that issue. In an October 1990 statement, the veteran asserted that the hemorrhage was in the right eye, not the left eye. A May 1991 supplemental statement of the case informed the veteran that the issue had been corrected to a claim for hemorrhage residuals of the right eye. In a July 1991 statement, the veteran indicated that if the service records showed that it was the left eye that had the hemorrhage then that was correct. In order to address the veteran's claims, the Board will consider the issue on appeal as entitlement to service connection for residuals of hemorrhage of the right or left eye. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he was treated for prostatitis during active service and that prostatits continued from that time. He maintains that during treatment at a Marine Hospital in January 1945, he suffered a hemorrhage of the eye which resulted in central vision loss. The veteran further asserts that he has no family history of glaucoma, and that the glaucoma is a residual of the retinal hemorrhage and central vision loss. 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 veteran has not submitted evidence of well-grounded claims of entitlement to service connection for prostatitis, residuals of retinal hemorrhage of the right or left eye, and bilateral glaucoma. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Competent medical evidence has not been submitted establishing an etiologic relationship between the veteran's post-service prostatitis or glaucoma and active service. 2. The evidence of record does not show that the veteran currently has residuals of retinal hemorrhage of either eye. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for prostatitis, residuals of retinal hemorrhage of the right or left eye, and bilateral glaucoma is not well-grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991). Where a veteran served 90 days or more during a period of war and glaucoma becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from the date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1993). Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1994). The threshold question to be addressed is whether the veteran has presented a well-grounded claim for service connection. If he has not presented a well-grounded claim, the appeal must fail and the VA is under no duty to assist him further in the development of his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1994). See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1992). Although a claim need not be conclusive to be well- grounded, it must be accompanied by supporting evidence that justifies a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992); Dixon v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 261, 262 (1992). Prostatitis and Bilateral Glaucoma The veteran claims that his current prostatitis is related to his period of active service. Clinical evidence prepared in January 1945 at a medical facility associated with the U.S. Public Health Service shows that the veteran was noted to have chronic prostatitis. Subsequent clinical evidence in January through March 1945 does not refer to prostatitis except as history. Thereafter, clinical records submitted by Charles A. Dunn, M.D., show treatment for prostatitis in August 1987. Treatment records prepared by Lon W. Dowlen, M.D., in October 1988 show a diagnosis of prostatitis, with a history of prostatitis and an initial consultation with Dr. Dowlen in August 1984. The examiner at a VA examination in April 1991 reported diagnoses of residual prostatitis, urethritis, and chronic cystitis. Drs. Dunn and Dowlen, as well as the VA examiner, did not relate a current finding of prostatitis to active service. As to glaucoma, an April 1989 letter from Joseph Amdur, M.D., first reveals that the veteran had "definite open angle glaucoma with optic nerve damage." The April 1991 VA examination report shows that the veteran had a history of glaucoma, with visual field deficit suggestive of neurologic deficit consistent with history of left cerebrovascular accident. Neither the VA examiner nor Dr. Amdur attempted to relate the glaucoma observed at that time to an earlier period of active service. Moreover, the treatment records associated with the claims folder fail to show evidence of glaucoma contemporaneous with a period of active service. With respect to the claims of service connection for prostatitis and glaucoma, the veteran can only show at best clinical evidence of those disorders many years after service separation without supporting medical evidence relating either prostatitis or glaucoma to active service. Clinical evidence initially revealed glaucoma in 1989, approximately 45 years after service separation, and does not establish an etiologic relationship to a period of active service. Similarly, clinical evidence over 41 years after service separation first shows post-service treatment for prostatitis but does not include medical evidence establishing an etiologic relationship to a period of active service. Without such competent evidence, the claims are not well-grounded and will, therefore, be dismissed. Retinal Hemorrhage of the Left or Right Eye The clinical records prepared in 1945 show treatment for detachment of the retina due to hemorrhage. At the April 1991 VA examination, the examiner reported that the veteran was status post hemorrhage of the right eye in 1945 and that the veteran described eye pain, burning, and a foreign body sensation in the right eye every morning. The examiner reported an impression of history of hemorrhage of the right eye with "no evidence at this time." Other medical evidence shows no findings of residuals of an eye hemorrhage. In Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141 (1992), the Court held that, in the absence of any evidence of current symptomatology of hypertension, the claim for service connection for hypertension was not plausible and, therefore, not well-grounded. The Court noted that: there is a total lack of evidence of any hypertension existing since service. Thus, even if the [Board] were to have concluded that the few elevated blood pressure readings in service represented the onset of hypertension, it would still have no basis to award a service-connected rating. Id. at 143. In Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 223 (1992), the Court again illustrated this point in dicta, noting that the appellant there had failed to "produce any evidence, medical or otherwise, that would tend to show a presently existing disability . . . ," and remarked that the claimant was mistaken in the belief that he was "entitled to some sort of benefit simply because he had a disease or injury while on active service." Id. at 225. In this case, the April 1991 VA examiner specifically found no current evidence of a retinal hemorrhage of the right eye, and other records show no residual disability from a past eye hemorrhage. The evidence of record, therefore, does not show a current disorder required for service connection, and, in light of the foregoing analysis, the veteran's claim must be dismissed. ORDER The veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for prostatitis, residuals of retinal hemorrhage of the right or left eye, and bilateral glaucoma is dismissed. M. SABULSKY 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.