BVA9505135 DOCKET NO. 93-13 410 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an injury of the right hand and right forefinger. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from April 1953 to April 1955. This appeal arises from a January 1993 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New Orleans, Louisiana, Regional Office (RO), denying entitlement to service connection for an injury of the right hand and right forefinger. In the June 1993 VA Form 1-646, the veteran's representative avers that there exist other issues logically raised by the appellant that have not been addressed by the VA. As there are no inextricably intertwined issues to be considered at this time, we refer this argument to the RO for actions deemed appropriate. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL In essence, it is maintained by and on behalf of the appellant that during service, while stationed in Korea, he sustained an injury to the right hand and forefinger, resulting in permanent disability. It is averred that service connection is merited. 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 evidence to justify a belief that his claim is well-grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. An injury of the right hand and right forefinger were not shown to have occurred in service.. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's has not submitted a well grounded claim for service connection for an injury of the right hand and right forefinger. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In the circumstances of this case, a grant of service connection requires credible evidence showing that a disease or injury resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces. A person who submits a claim for benefits shall have the burden of submitting a well-grounded claim; that is a claim accompanied by supporting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). A claim which is not well grounded is a nullity in law and may not be adjudicated. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). In this case, the claim is not a well-grounded claim. Where the determinative issue involves medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is "plausible" or "possible" is required. A claimant cannot meet the burden of submitting a well-grounded claim merely by presenting lay testimony because lay persons are not competent to offer medical opinions. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992), Moray v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 211 (1993). In the present case, the only available service medical record is the veteran's separation physical examination report, dated in is the veteran's separation physical examination report, dated in April 1955. At the time, the upper extremities were described as normal. In the space allotted for medical history, "none" was reported. Received in September 1992 was the appellant's application for compensation or pension (VA Form 21-526). Although the veteran alleged treatment of the right hand and finger in 1953, in the space provided for listing post service treatment, it was indicated that there was no applicable information. Thus, it appears that no treatment of the right hand or right forefinger was rendered after service. During a November 1992 VA medical examination of the right hand and fingers, the veteran related a history of and injury to the right hand in service requiring sutures on the right forefinger. He also described two motor vehicle accidents after service, although he indicated that he sustained no injuries either time. Physical examination revealed a thin white scar on the dorsum of the first phalanx of the right first finger, measuring 1/8 inch by 1/2 inch. There was also a scar crossing the dorsum of the first proximal interphalangeal joint, 7/8 inch by 1/16 inch. The scars were not depressed or adherent, nor was function of the hand impaired. X-ray examination of the hand revealed minimal degenerative changes in several of the digits of the hand. While there is evidence of a right hand injury, as shown by the scarring of the first finger, the veteran has not presented evidence that this occurred in service. The separation physical examination is without mention of the injury, and the veteran indicated in his application for benefits that he never sought treatment for the right hand. Evidence contemporaneous with the veteran's period of service would be of probative value in this case. To be a well-grounded claim, a claim may not be conclusive but it must be accompanied by evidence that suggests more than a purely speculative basis for granting entitlement to the requested benefits. Dixon v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 261, 263 (1992). In this case, the evidence does not bear out the veteran's contentions, and the claim is not well-grounded. ORDER The application for service connection for injury to the right hand and the right forefinger is dismissed. RENÉE M. PELLETIER 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.