BVA9504632 DOCKET NO. 93-03 367 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for left leg disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for ulcer disease. 3. Entitlement to service connection for eye disability. 4. Whether the veteran meets the basic eligibility requirements for pension benefits. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James L. March, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran claims to have had active service from January to August 1955, from February to August 1956, and from December 1956 to April 1958. The latter period has been verified, but the RO has been unable to verify the first two periods. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. In June 1993, the Board remanded the case for further development, which has been accomplished to the extent possible. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he was treated for ulcer and eye disease during service. He alleges that he injured his left knee and ankle when parachuting during service. He maintains that he has continued to receive treatment for these alleged disorders ever since service. He contends that he meets the basic eligibility requirements for pension benefits since he served during the Korean conflict. 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's claims of entitlement to service connection for ulcer disease, eye disability, and left leg disability, and of basic eligibility for pension benefits are not well grounded. FINDING OF FACT The claims for service connection for ulcer disease, eye disability, and left leg disability, and of basic eligibility for pension benefits are not plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claims of entitlement to service connection for ulcer disease, eye disability, and left leg disability, and of basic eligibility for pension benefits are not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Board notes that the veteran's claims for service connection for ulcer disease, eye disability, left leg disability, and of basic eligibility for pension benefits must be plausible and capable of substantiation, and thus well-grounded, within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). If not, VA has no further duty to assist him in developing facts pertinent to those claims. See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). I. Pension benefits The law authorizes the payment of pension to a veteran of a period of war who has the requisite service and who is permanently and totally disabled from disability, not the result of his own willful misconduct. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1502, 1521 (West 1991). The veteran has not submitted any service department documentation in support of his claim of wartime service, and the service department has reported that it is unable to verify that the veteran had such service. Consequently, his claim is not well grounded. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.203 (1993) II. Ulcer disease, eye disability and left leg disability The Board notes that the veteran's service medical records are not of record and were apparently destroyed in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri. VA and private medical records have been received, the first of which is dated in May 1990, over 32 years after the veteran's separation from service. These records relate to treatment and evaluation of the veteran decades postservice, and include no medical opinion suggesting that any of the disabilities at issue were present during service or for many years thereafter or that any of the disabilities is etiologically related to service. The only connection made between these disorders and the veteran's period of service is the veteran's own contention. The Board is cognizant of the veteran's personal opinion that these disorders are due to service; however, as a lay person, he is not qualified to proffer medical opinions or diagnoses. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494-95 (1992). Thus, without the requisite competent medical evidence suggesting the presence of ulcer disease, left leg disability and eye disability during service or for many years thereafter or attributing the veteran's ulcer disease, left leg disability and eye disability to service, the veteran has not met his burden of submitting evidence that his claims are well grounded. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). Although the Board has considered and disposed of this appeal on a ground different from that of the RO, that is, whether the veteran's claims are well grounded rather than whether he is entitled to prevail on the merits, the veteran has not been prejudiced by the Board's decision. In assuming that the claims were well grounded, the RO accorded the veteran greater consideration than his claims warranted under the circumstances. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384, 392-94 (1993). To remand this case to the RO for consideration of the issue of whether the appellant's claims are well grounded would be pointless, and in light of the law cited above, would not result in a determination favorable to the appellant. VA O.G.C. Prec. Op. 16-92, 57 Fed. Reg. 49,747 (1992). ORDER As the claim of basic eligibility for pension benefits is not well-grounded, the appeal is dismissed. As the claims for entitlement to service connection for ulcer disease, eye disability and left leg disability are not well- grounded, the appeals are 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.