BVA9501701 DOCKET NO. 93-10 704 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for disability of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine. 2. Entitlement to service connection for deviated septum. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Wm. Thompson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from January 1974 to January 1976, and from May 1981 to October 1985. This appeal arises from an October 1992 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Los Angeles, California, Regional Office (RO) rating action that included denial of service connection for disability of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and a deviated septum. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends, in essence, that the RO erred in not finding that the evidence of record supports service connection for disability of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and a deviated septum. She asserts that the accident in service also resulted in back disability, and that the service records should show a deviated septum. 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(s). 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 claim for entitlement to service connection for disability of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and deviated septum is not well-grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Disability of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and a deviated septum were not demonstrated in service. 2. Disability of the thoracic spine and a deviated septum have not been objectively demonstrated post-service. 3. There is no objective medical evidence to associate the degenerative changes in the cervical and lumbar spine, first demonstrated many years after service, with any incident of service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant's claim for service connection for disability of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and deviated septum is not well-grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In passing the Board notes that there are no service medical records in file for the veteran's first period of active military duty; however, the veteran does not contend that any of the reported disabilities arose during her first period of service. Additionally, the enlistment examination in May 1981 did not show any back disability or deviated septum. In Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14 (1993), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) held that A veteran claiming entitlement to VA benefits has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107, and Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609, 610-11 (1992). If a claim is not well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). A well-grounded claim is a plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). Although the claim need not be conclusive, it must be accompanied by supporting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible. See Tirpak. In this case, the appellant has failed to submit medical evidence establishing the existence of disability of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, or a deviated septum in service, any objective medical evidence that the post-service disability of the cervical and lumbar spine is related to service, or that she currently has thoracic spine disability or a deviated septum, related to service. The appellant argues that when she fell in service, and was treated for the residuals of the head injury, that her other injuries were overlooked, and that back injury was never considered. She asserts that her back was never properly examined in service, and that the current changes in the cervical and lumbar spine could only have come from the accident in service. She also asserts that a VA X-ray of her thoracic spine was not read, and the examination was therefore inadequate. In regard to her septum, she reports that a physician told her that her septum was not straight, and that a computerized tomography (CT) scan of her head in service should be secured so as to show evidence of a deviated septum. Service medical records show that in mid August 1984, while drinking alcohol, the veteran jumped approximately 10 feet into the Kern river, striking her head on a rock. She was hospitalized, improved, and in late August she was discharged from the hospital with 30 days convalescent leave. The Board notes that a CT scan identified no fractures, and skull and cervical spine X-rays were negative. When the appellant returned from convalescent leave in late September 1984 she was seen at a neurosurgery clinic. At that time she complained of right thumb pain, and X-rays showed a non displaced fracture of the right metacarpal. There were no recorded references to her back or nose. The appellant continued to be followed at a service clinic to December 1984, for residuals associated with the head injury. In March 1985 she was seen at the neurosurgery clinic in regard to her fitness for duty. It was noted that the anosmia had improved since the last examination. Clinical examination of the back and face during separation examination in October 1985 showed no abnormality. In the veteran's contemporaneously prepared Report of Medical History, she denied having or having had recurrent back pain, arthritis, rheumatism or bursitis. There were no complaints, signs or symptoms of spinal disability or deviated septum. When the appellant applied for VA disability benefits in May 1992 she indicated that she had not received any post-service treatment for her back or deviated septum. The appellant was provided VA examinations in July 1992. She complained of severe pain in the spine from the neck to the lower back after an injury in August 1984. The pain was said to be especially noted in the month after the fall, continuing to the present. On physical examination some minor variation in extension, and decrease in left lateral flexion of the cervical spine were noted, with no variations for the lumbar spine. There were no other pertinent physical findings for her spine. X-ray studies of the cervical and lumbar spine showed minor degenerative changes. Any X-ray study for the thoracic spine was not returned to radiology for reading. The diagnosis was chronic spine pain after trauma. Also in July 1992, special nose and sinus examination was performed. The appellant reported a concussion, with no nose or facial bone injury in a fall in 1984. On physical examination, the external nose was normal and the septum was straight. The record does not show that the veteran received inadequate treatment after her head injury in 1984. Her complaint that the right thumb injury was not found until a month after her injury must be viewed in light of her 30 day convalescent leave after she was discharged from the hospital. When she returned to base in September 1984, and was seen at the neurosurgery clinic, she complained about her thumb. At that time she had ample opportunity to complain about her back but failed to do so. While the veteran currently reports chronic back pain since the head injury in 1984, such statements are not supported by the contemporaneous evidence of record. An X-ray of the cervical spine in August 1984 was negative. Follow up examinations after her return to duty in 1984 do not refer to her back. Further, she categorically denied any back trouble when examined prior to separation from service in 1985. The record shows that she did not seek any treatment for her back after service. There is no objective evidence that the veteran had any back problems during service or within a reasonable time thereafter. The July 1992 diagnosis of chronic back pain after trauma is based on a history as provided by the veteran. A medical opinion is inadequate when it is a general conclusion based on history furnished by the appellant and unsupported by clinical evidence. Black v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 177 (1993). While the veteran claims that a physician recently told her that she had a deviated septum, she has not identified that physician or provided any medical evidence to support her claim. Service medical records do not show any injury to her face, or reference to a deviated septum. It is also for consideration that in the evaluations of the veteran's anosmia (loss of sense of smell) in service, there was no reference to a deviated septum. The veteran made no references to facial injuries or a deviated septum during service, including on the separation examination in October 1985. The separation examination in 1985 did not show a deviated septum, and the VA examination in 1992 did not show a deviated septum. In regard to the CAT scan in service, the record already shows that no fractures were demonstrated, and there was no reference to a deviated septum. There is no objective evidence to indicate that the veteran currently has or ever had a deviated septum. "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." Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 309, 314 (1993). In this instance, no disability has been shown. Here, the veteran has not provided any objective medical evidence showing the existence of cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine disability in service, a deviated septum in service, or that any current back disability is etiologically related to any incident of service. Having not made evidentiary assertions establishing a plausible basis entitling her to service-connected disability compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1141 (West 1991), she has failed to submit a well-grounded claim under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). In light of Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994), purported adjudication of claims which are not well-grounded are a nullity in contemplation of law. In regard to the appellant's assertions concerning examination of the thoracic spine, the Board points out that evidence of a current condition is not material to the issue of service connection and an examination is not required. De Los Reyes V. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 548 (1993). ORDER Having found the claim for service connection for disability of the cervical, thoracic and lumbar spine, and deviated septum not to be well-grounded, the claim is dismissed. THOMAS J. DANNAHER Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Continued on next page) 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.