BVA9501880 DOCKET NO. 93-03 524 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a right ear disability, to include defective hearing. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Puerto Rico Public Advocate for Veterans Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nadine W. Benjamin, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1958 to July 1960. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 1991 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that service connection is warranted for a hearing loss in the right ear, which he argues was incurred in service. He states that he fired artillery in service, and that he began to have right ear problems after exposure to the noise. He reports that he was treated during service for his right ear. He further reports that he was not subsequently treated after service until 1991. 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 of a well grounded claim. FINDING OF FACT The claim for service connection for right ear disability, to include defective hearing is not plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for right ear disability, to include defective hearing, is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The threshold question to be answered is whether the veteran has presented evidence of a well-grounded claim, that is, a claim which is plausible and meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. If he has not, his appeal must fail. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990). The Board finds that the veteran's claim for service connection right ear disability, to include defective hearing, is not well grounded, and there is no further duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim. Service medical records show that the veteran was treated in April 1959 for right otitis media with hearing loss, but also show that his right ear and hearing acuity were found to be normal on separation examination in June 1960. Thereafter, there is nothing in the record to show treatment for any ear problems until 1991, over 30 years after discharge, when decreased hearing was documented in VA medical records. Moreover, the veteran has stated that he was not treated for right ear disability after service for over 30 years. Further, there is no medical opinion or other medical evidence suggesting that the veteran's post- service right ear disability is etiologically related to the ear infection noted during service, noise exposure during service or any other incident of service . Moreover, there is no postservice medical evidence of any infection of the right ear. While the Board has considered the veteran's statements and testimony, he is not competent to give medical opinion. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492. 494 (1992). Where a determinative issue involves medical causation, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible is required to establish that the claim is well grounded. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). Since no such evidence has been submitted in this case, the Board must conclude that the veteran's claim is not well grounded. ORDER Evidence of a well grounded claim not having been submitted, the claim of service connection for right ear disability, to include defective hearing, is 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.