BVA9508189 DOCKET NO. 93-14 176 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a fractured jaw. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD John Z. Jones, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran-appellant had active duty from June 1942 to November 1945. This appeal arises from a November 1992 rating decision of the Los Angeles, California, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that while at a country club in July 1943 he slipped on a hillside hurrying to get into a taxicab and fell into the open window of the taxi, fracturing his jaw. He states that it is difficult to have dentures made because his jaw is crooked. He further states that he is unable to verify his injury because the air base where he received treatment over fifty years ago no longer exists. He requests that the reasonable doubt doctrine be applied. DECISION OF THE BOARD In accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), after review and consideration of all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file, and for the following reasons and bases, the Board decides that the claim of service connection for residuals of a fractured jaw is not well- grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT The veteran has failed to submit evidence to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that a claim of service connection for residuals of a fractured jaw is plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran has not submitted a well-grounded claim of service connection for residuals of a fractured jaw. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Factual Background No service medical records, fire related, or Surgeon General Office records are available. Sick call reports indicate that the veteran was hospitalized in July 1943, condition not shown. A July 1943 letter from a First Lieutenant states that the veteran was removed from his squadron because of an accident that required six weeks' hospitalization. There is no indication of the nature of the injury. The record is void of any medical evidence and the veteran has not referred to any. Analysis Pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a), the veteran has the initial burden of submitting evidence to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well -grounded. In Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) defined a well-grounded claim as "a plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Such a claim need not be conclusive but only possible to satisfy the initial burden of § [5107(a)]." 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. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). A determination of 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. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994); Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 309, 314 (1993). Thus, the veteran must show that he incurred an injury in service and that he has residuals of that injury to make his claim of service connection "plausible" or "possible". Against this background, the Board must decide whether the supporting evidence satisfies the requirement of a well-grounded claim. The supporting evidence in this case consists of sick call reports and a letter from a First Lieutenant. Both the sick call reports and the Lieutenant's letter, while verifying that the veteran was hospitalized in July 1943, fail to indicate the nature of his injuries. The record is also void of any evidence of a present disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability and a relationship with an injury incurred in service, the claim is not plausible and, therefore, not well-grounded. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 143-44 (1992). Finally, if the veteran were to rely solely on his own assertion of present disability attributable to an inservice injury, his own lay opinion would be insufficient evidence to support the claim. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992) (holding that lay persons are not competent to offer medical opinions). The submission of a well-grounded claim is "a prerequisite to the triggering of the duty-to-assist obligation under section 5107(a)." Godwin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 419, 425 (1991). Since the veteran has failed to submit a well-grounded claim the VA is not under a statutory duty to assist him in the development of evidence. The Board's decision, however, does not prevent the veteran from seeking evidence to support his claim. Given the veteran's failure to submit a well-grounded claim, the Board need not reach the reasonable doubt doctrine. 38 C.F.R. 3.102 (1994). Since the Board's decision, regarding the claim of service connection for residuals of a fractured jaw, does not reach the merits of the claim, it is not deemed a final decision of the Board. Thus, the Board's action allows the veteran to begin, if he can, on a "clean slate". Grottveit at 93. Medical evidence, such as dental records or X-rays, showing the residuals or postservice treatment of a broken jaw shortly after service would be sufficient to establish a well-grounded claim. ORDER The appeal of the issue of service connection for residuals of a broken jaw 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.