BVA9507972 DOCKET NO. 90-18 321 DATE On appeal from a decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of Agent Orange exposure, including prostatitis, irritable bowel syndrome, memory loss, a blood disorder, and skin disability. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P. H. Mathis, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1968 to July 1972, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Indianapolis, Indiana. In November 1990, the Board remanded the case to the RO pending the promulgation of additional regulations governing benefits for residuals of herbicide exposure. The Board did not consider the merits of the veteran's appeal in 1990 regarding the Agent Orange claim because in May 1989 the United States District Court, Northern District of California, had voided all benefit denials under existing herbicide exposure regulations. New regulations have since been promulgated and the RO applied them in a rating decision of July 1994. Based on a liberal review of the evidence, it appears that the veteran has again raised the issue of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. The Board refers the matter to the RO and notes that his administrative records reflect participation in potentially significant combat related events in Vietnam, and post-traumatic stress disorder has been diagnosed. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL It is contended that the veteran has residuals of Agent Orange exposure based on his service in Vietnam. He attributes prostatitis, irritable bowel syndrome, memory loss, a blood disorder, and skin disability to Agent Orange exposure. 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's claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of Agent Orange exposure is not well grounded. FINDING OF FACT The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of Agent Orange exposure is not plausible. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant has not submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim for service connection for residuals of Agent Orange exposure. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Initially, one who submits a claim for benefits under a law administered by VA has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well-grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Only when that initial burden has been met does the duty of the Secretary to assist such a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to the claim attach. Id. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has further defined a well-grounded claim as a "plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation." Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). It has also held that where a determinative issue involves a medical diagnosis or medical causation, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible is required. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). Service connection may be established for disability resulting from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1993). A veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to a herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (1993); 59 Fed. Reg. 5106 (1994) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.307). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, the following diseases shall be service-connected, even though there is no record of such disease during service: chloracne or other acneform diseases consistent with chloracne, Hodgkin's disease, multiple myeloma, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, porphyria cutanea tarda, respiratory cancers, and soft-tissue sarcoma. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The VA has determined that a presumption of service connection based on exposure to herbicides used in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era is not appropriate for any condition for which the Secretary has not determined that a presumption of service connection is warranted. See, Notice, 59 Fed. Reg. 341 (1994). Here, the veteran contends that prostatitis, irritable bowel syndrome, memory loss, a blood disorder, and skin disability are due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. There is no medical evidence suggesting the presence of the claimed disabilities during service or for years thereafter, nor is there any medical evidence linking the claimed disabilities to the veteran's exposure to Agent Orange during service or to any other incident of service. Examinations conducted by the VA have not revealed any disability secondary to Agent Orange exposure. For example, during examination by the VA in December 1986, the veteran reported skin disability which he described as beginning in Vietnam and becoming more severe. He had never seen a dermatologist. There was a diagnosis of tinea cruris, but there is no medical evidence to relate this skin disorder to service or show that it is a residual of Agent Orange exposure. The veteran also complained of what he termed a "bowel syndrome," but examination findings were normal. No abnormality was shown on the neurologic examination. Neither prostatitis nor a blood disorder was manifested. There was a diagnosis of history of Agent Orange exposure. When he was examined by the VA in August 1987, the diagnosis was: There were no discernible disabilities resulting from exposure to Agent Orange. At the hearing on appeal in July 1989, the veteran testified that he was convinced that he had residuals of Agent Orange exposure. Although the veteran has expressed his opinion that such a relationship exists, he is not qualified, as a lay person, to furnish medical opinions or diagnoses. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494-95 (1992). Accordingly, without the requisite competent medical evidence establishing that the veteran's claim is plausible, he has not met his burden of submitting evidence that his claim of entitlement to service connection for Agent Orange residuals is well grounded. Grottveit at 92; Tirpak at 611. The Board has reviewed the records of numerous VA examinations and outpatient visits through the years, but none of these reflect that he has any disability related to Agent Orange exposure. Most recently, he failed to report for VA examinations scheduled in August 1994. The evidence in the aggregate does not demonstrate that his claims are plausible. Moreover, regarding the claim for service connection for skin disability as residuals of Agent Orange, there is no medical evidence of record suggesting the presence of chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne. In addition, there is no medical evidence indicating that the veteran has any of the disabilities recognized by VA as due to Agent Orange exposure pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Nor is there competent medical evidence that the claimed disorders are otherwise related to Agent Orange exposure. In light of these circumstances, the Board must conclude that the veteran has failed to meet his initial burden of producing evidence of a well-grounded claim. ORDER As the claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of Agent Orange exposure is not well-grounded, the appeal is dismissed. F. JUDGE FLOWERS 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.