BVA9501712 DOCKET NO. 90-51 342 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Louisville, Kentucky THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a claimed seizure disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Alvin D. Wax, attorney ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Sabrina M. Tilley, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June to October 1943. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), in May 1991, denied entitlement to service connection for heart disease. This determination was based on a finding that the veteran had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen his claim. By a February 1993 decision, the United States Court of Veterans Affairs (the Court) affirmed the Board's decision, but remanded the case because of its conclusion that the Board had failed to address the veteran's claim for service connection for a "nervous Service connection had been denied for a seizure disorder in a September 1990 rating decision; however, that issue previously had not been addressed by a statement of the case or otherwise prepared for appellate review. Entitlement to service connection for a nervous condition had been denied on several occasions in the past. Given that the veteran has submitted no evidence to support his efforts to reopen his claim of service connection for a nervous condition, the Board, in its recent remand of August 1993, characterized the issue as that of service connection for a seizure disorder. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that in September 1943, he became ill during his military training, was admitted to the hospital and was discharged in the following month in fair condition. Over the years that followed, he reportedly has received treatment from private and VA physicians for seizures (epilepsy). It is his belief that he is entitled to service connection for this condition. 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 presented sufficient evidence to justify the belief of an impartial individual that a well- grounded claim of service connection for a seizure disorder has been presented. FINDING OF FACT The veteran has not submitted any competent evidence to show that he currently has a seizure disorder or other related neurologic disease that may be associated with injury or disease of his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran has not submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim of service connection for a seizure disorder. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107, 7104, (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The law requires that a claimant shall have the burden of submitting a claim that is well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). A well-grounded claim is one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). The VA benefits system requires more than just an allegation; but a claimant must submit 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, 611 (1992). Although the claim need not be conclusive, the statute requires the claim must be accompanied by evidence. Id. In determining whether the veteran has submitted a well-grounded claim, the supporting evidence, is presumed to be true, unless assertions made are either inherently incredible or beyond the competence of the person making the assertion. See King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19, 21 (1993). In the veteran's case, he has made allegations to the effect that he currently has a seizure disorder related to his active service. However, the medical records referable to his brief period of service do not contain any reference to a seizure disorder or other related condition. Although the veteran was noted to have complaints of dizziness, along with chest pains and shortness of breath, these symptoms were related to neuropsychiatric factors. The diagnoses were psychoneurosis, mixed type with hysterical features and neurocirculatory asthenia. This condition was determined, based on medical examination, to have existed prior to service. The initial postservice examination, conducted by VA in August 1945, concluded that the veteran had not been found to have a psychoneurosis or other neuropsychiatric disability. It was noted that the veteran had been examined by a board of doctors who concluded that the former diagnoses had been made in error. In a May 1963 statement from J. S. Byas, M.D., the son of the veteran's treating physician, reports having personal knowledge of the veteran's treatment since early 1945 for occasional episodes characterized by occasional syncope, among other symptoms. Dr. Byas could not recall whether a definite diagnosis was reached. The first reference to seizures is documented in a June 1963 statement from H. C. Morris, M.D., who gave no indication of the date of the onset of this condition. In a June 1963 statement, W. R. Williams, M.D., reported that he had treated the veteran since March 1963 for hypertension and dizziness. The subsequent report of VA examination, conducted in January 1964, shows that the veteran reported receiving treatment since January 1963 for seizures. Subsequent reports of VA outpatient treatment, dated in 1987, show treatment for dizziness, along with a history of high blood pressure, ventricular arrhythmias and cerebral vascular accident. No seizure disorder was diagnosed at this time. Submitted records from the Louisville General Hospital in October 1963 show a history of dizziness since January of that year. The veteran underwent a VA neurological evaluation in May 1994 for a possible seizure disorder. He stated that he began experiencing episodes in the 1960s which apparently were diagnosed as epilepsy. His description of these events, according to the doctor, was quite vague. However, he appeared to be describing a sensation of lightheadedness or vertigo which occurred while standing. The examiner explained that he was unable to obtain any estimation as to frequency with which these episodes occurred. Likewise, the examiner could not obtain from the veteran when most recent episode had occurred. The examiner reviewed the pertinent records which included two electroencephalograms (EEGs). One of these was a normal study, dated in January 1988 and the other one, dated previously in October 1963, indicated "moderately dysrhythmic," which was considered a nonspecific abnormality. The examiner determined that both EEGs were not supportive of a diagnosis of epilepsy. In conclusion, it was noted that the veteran had a long history of episodes of dizziness or vertigo followed by loss of consciousness at times which was more consistent with syncopal episodes rather than a seizure disorder. The veteran's assertions concerning a claimed seizure disorder have been considered. However, he has not brought forth any medical evidence that would establish that he actually has a seizure disorder or other neurologic disability which is related to injury or disease noted in his active service. His lay assertions, as they pertain to a question of medical diagnosis or causation, are not supported by competent evidence and, as such, cannot constitute evidence to render a claim well grounded under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). ORDER The veteran's claim for service connection for a claimed seizure disorder is not well grounded. The appeal is dismissed. STEPHEN L. WILKINS 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.