BVA9505561 DOCKET NO. 93-11 640 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Little Rock, Arkansas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of dental trauma to the upper front teeth. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Richard F. Williams, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from April 1953 to April 1957 and from June 1957 to February 1974. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 1992 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Little Rock, Arkansas, which denied service connection for residuals of dental trauma to the upper front teeth. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he sustained an injury while on active duty that resulted in the loss of five of his front upper teeth. He asserts that his teeth broke off at a point even with the gums when he was hit in the mouth by a fuel hose while working on a jet engine in the Air Force. The veteran says the teeth then had to be removed and a denture inserted. He argues that service connection should be granted for residuals of dental trauma, so that he can receive needed dental care from the VA. 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 preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma to the upper front teeth. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During service the veteran had several upper front teeth removed and replaced by a denture; this was due to dental disease, not dental trauma. 2. The veteran does not have any dental condition of his upper front teeth due to claimed service trauma. CONCLUSION OF LAW Claimed residuals of dental trauma to the upper front teeth were not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.381 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION I. Factual Background The veteran served on active duty from April 1953 to April 1957 and from June 1957 to February 1974, at which point he retired from the Air Force. An enlistment dental examination in April 1953 revealed restorable caries of teeth numbers 8 through 11 (front upper teeth). The service dental records show that he received treatment for caries of these teeth in May and June 1953. Thereafter he periodically received treatment for caries and other dental conditions of various teeth. In March 1955, tooth number 7 was noted to have caries, tooth numbers 7 and 9 were X-rayed, and an impression was taken for a maxillary partial denture. On July 1, 1955, teeth numbers 7 through 10 were X- rayed. On July 6, 1955, pulpitis of these teeth was diagnosed and the teeth were removed, and a supernumerary (extra) tooth was also surgically removed (other dental records refer to an impacted supernumerary tooth being located in the area of tooth number 9). On that date, July 6, 1955, a maxillary partial denture was inserted to replace these teeth. Postoperative treatment was provided in July 1955. The denture was relined in August 1955. In November 1955, it was noted the denture had broken, and it was repaired. An April 1957 service discharge examination noted that the veteran had various dental defects, including a bridge for teeth numbers 7 through 10 and restorable caries of abutting teeth numbers 6 and 11. Dental records from the veteran's second period of service (June 1957 to February 1974) show that the bridge for teeth numbers 7 through 10 was periodically damaged, and repaired or replaced; and crowns were placed on abutting teeth numbers 6 and 11. The service medical and dental records are negative for any reference to trauma to the natural front upper teeth. The veteran's initial claim for service connection for dental trauma was received by the VA in September 1992. The veteran said the injury occurred in 1955 when he was struck by an aircraft fuel hose while stationed at an Air Force base, and he said he was then treated at the base dental clinic. The claim was denied by the RO in November 1992. In his December 1992 notice of disagreement, the veteran related that in about June 1955, while working on a jet engine, a fuel line struck him and broke off five upper front teeth. He said the base dental clinic had to pull the five teeth and install a partial plate. The veteran said he now needed additional treatment for his upper teeth, including a new plate. In his January 1993 substantive appeal the veteran related that the fuel hose broke off the five teeth at a point even with his gums, and that, after the teeth were pulled and the swelling went down, impressions were made and a dental plate provided. The veteran testified at a March 1993 RO hearing that he sustained an injury to his mouth and front upper teeth in June 1955, while on active duty, when he was working on a jet engine and the main fuel hose unfolded and hit him in the mouth, which resulted in a lip laceration and the breaking off of five upper teeth. He said that he was taken to a hospital where an on-call dentist pulled the injured front upper teeth. He said that he received a partial upper plate shortly thereafter. The veteran also testified that, prior to the in-service dental injury, his front upper teeth were turning dark, and he was told that they eventually would have to be pulled. Notarized statements, dated in March 1993, were submitted from three retired Air Force sergeants who served with the veteran. [redacted] reported that he was stationed with the veteran in Texas in June 1955, and he recalled that the veteran was working in the engine shop and on the flight line as a mechanic. Mr. [redacted] said he remembered an incident when the veteran's front teeth were knocked out by a fuel line on an F-86 aircraft in June 1955. He added that he recalled the incident because he had a similar accident six months earlier, which resulted in his losing his front four teeth, and he noted that both accidents occurred while handling main fuel lines, and installing and removing engines. [redacted] reported in his March 1993 statement that he was assigned to the same squadron as the veteran in June 1955, and at that time he, the veteran, and two other airmen removed an engine from an F-86 on a night shift and, while disconnecting the engine, the veteran was hit in the mouth with a fuel line, which knocked out or broke off several of his teeth. Mr. [redacted] said he drove the veteran to the hospital and dental clinic, where his broken-off teeth were removed, and after the veteran's injury resolved, a partial denture was made for him. [redacted], in his March 1993 statement, said that the veteran was accidentally struck in the mouth by a fuel hose while performing jet engine maintenance on an F-86 fighter plane at an Air Force base in Texas in June 1955. Mr. [redacted] said that the blow resulted in 4 or 5 of the veteran's front teeth being broken off, and he added that the injured teeth were removed by an Air Force dentist. In statements submitted in April 1993, the veteran said that the dental trauma might not have been recorded in his service records because the incident and immediate treatment happened during the night shift. He said that after he was taken to the hospital, a dentist had to be called in from home. He said the dentist simply put him in the dental chair, gave him novocain, and pulled his teeth. The veteran said he did not recall any of his records being pulled at that time, and the dentist did not even ask him his name. II. Analysis The veteran claims service connection for residuals of dental trauma to his upper front teeth. His claim is well grounded, meaning not inherently implausible; the RO has obtained all relevant evidence; and there is no further VA duty to assist the veteran in developing the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. For dental conditions, each missing or defective tooth and each disease of the investing tissues will be considered separately in determining service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(a). As to each noncompensable service-connected dental condition, a determination will be made as to whether it is due to a combat wound or other service trauma. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(e). The significance of a finding that a dental condition is due to combat wounds or other service trauma is that the veteran will be entitled to VA outpatient dental treatment (this is known as Class II(a) VA dental treatment), as often as may be found necessary, regardless of the timeliness of the application for dental treatment. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1712(b)(1)(C); 38 C.F.R. § 17.123(c). The service medical and dental records show that decay of several upper front teeth was noted when the veteran entered service in April 1953, and disease of the upper front teeth was periodically treated thereafter. In March 1955, continued decay of some of the upper front teeth was noted, and at that time an impression was taken for an anticipated partial upper denture. This is probative evidence that the upper front teeth were to be removed by reason of disease, not trauma. The service records show no evidence of dental trauma in June 1955 (as now alleged by the veteran) or at any other time in service. In July 1955, upper front teeth numbers 7 through 10 were diagnosed as having a disease, pulpitis, and there was no mention of trauma to the teeth. The teeth affected by pulpitis were removed (along with an impacted supernumerary tooth in the area), and the previously constructed partial denture was inserted. The Board finds the service medical records to be highly persuasive evidence against there being a dental condition of the upper front teeth due to service trauma. It is significant that the service dental records are comprehensive and depict orderly treatment and removal of upper front teeth, with insertion of a denture, by reason of disease, not trauma. Given the thorough nature of the service medical and dental records, it would seem most likely that any trauma to the upper front teeth would have been recorded, at least by history at some time after the event, but it was not. The service dental records do note that the upper partial denture was broken or otherwise damaged on occasion, but damage to a prosthesis is not dental trauma. Other evidence against the claim includes the fact that service connection for dental trauma was not claimed until 1992, many years after service and decades after the purported injury, and there is no post-service medical or dental records from the interim which might contain spontaneous histories of dental trauma in service. In support of his claim the veteran relies on his own statements and hearing testimony and statements dated in 1993 from three service comrades. All these individuals essentially relate that the veteran broke several front teeth when struck by a fuel hose while working on an F-86 aircraft in June 1955, and that the teeth then had to be removed and replaced by a denture. However, the similarities of the statements, and the fact that they were made decades after service, suggest that the veteran's service comrades had their memories "refreshed" by the veteran. Given the frailties of human memory, it is doubtful that an individual could accurately recall specific details (month of event, type of aircraft being worked on, etc.) of a relatively minor incident occurring to another person so many years ago. Some of the veteran's own statements concerning the alleged episode (e.g., that when his teeth were removed in service, the dentist did not even ask him his name) do not seem plausible. In any event, the statements of the veteran and his service comrades are in conflict with the more reliable contemporaneous service medical records. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the veteran does not have a dental condition of the upper front teeth due to service trauma. Claimed residuals of dental trauma to the upper front teeth were not incurred in or aggravated by service. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply, and service connection must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990). ORDER Service connection for residuals of dental trauma to the upper front teeth is denied. L. W. TOBIN 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.