BVA9502976 DOCKET NO. 93-11 450 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Montgomery, Alabama THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans INTRODUCTION The veteran served from February 1943 to September 1944. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 1993 rating decision from the Montgomery, Alabama, Regional Office (RO). The representative has indicated that the issue of entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disability should be addressed. We note that the issue has not been developed for appeal and such issue is not inextricably intertwined with the issue on appeal. Also, there is the possibility of a prior, final decision. We believe that a remand would result in unnecessary delay that would be prejudicial to the veteran The veteran is entitled to a decision, and the Board shall not needlessly delay the appeal. The potential informal claim is referred to the regional office for action. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he was treated for lung and chest conditions during service. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.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 claim for service connection for a lung condition is not well grounded. FINDING OF FACT Satisfactory evidence attributing a lung disorder to service has not been presented. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for a lung disability is not well grounded. 38 U.S.A. § 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The threshold question to be answered is whether the appellant has presented evidence of a well-grounded claim for service connection for a lung disability. If he has not presented a well-grounded claim, the appeal must fail. 38 U.S.A. § 5107 (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). As we explain below, we find that the claim is not well grounded. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.A. § 1110 (West 1991). Regulations provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1993). The claimant has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief that the claim is well grounded. The VA benefits system requires more than just an allegation; a claimant must submit supporting evidence. Furthermore, the evidence must justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible. The quality and quantity of the evidence required to meet this statutory burden of necessity will depend upon the issue presented by the claim. Where the issue is factual in nature, e.g., whether an incident or injury occurred in service, competent lay testimony, including a veteran's solitary testimony, may constitute sufficient evidence to establish a well-grounded claim. However, where the determinative issue involves medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible or possible is required. A claimant would not meet this burden merely by presenting lay testimony because lay persons are not competent to offer medical opinions. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). The evidence of record reflects that the veteran honorably served his nation during a time of war. He was trained as a rifleman, and his character of service was excellent. We also note that the veteran believes in the merits of his claim. However, the issue before the Board is entitlement to service connection for a lung disability. Although the veteran voiced a complaint of dyspnea during service, lung pathology was not identified. X-ray examination in May 1944 disclosed that the lungs were negative. The separation examination disclosed that the chest X-ray was negative and that the lungs were normal. During periods of hospitalization in 1955, 1957, and on examination in 1958, the results regarding the lungs were normal, or described as reflecting no disease. The evidence does reflect that there are findings of calcific densities and testing disclosed some reduction in forced expiratory volume and forced vital capacity. However, such abnormalities were identified in 1984. The Board has not been presented with competent evidence tending to establish that such findings are due to service, and the veteran, as a layman, is not qualified to enter such an opinion. Regardless of the veteran's contributions during a period of war, the Board has not been presented with competent evidence of lung pathology during service or attributing a claimed lung condition to his period of service. Also, the other competent evidence tends to disprove the claim. Accordingly, the claim is not well grounded and the appeal is dismissed. Since the claim is not well grounded, the veteran shall not be burdened by the necessity of submitting new and material evidence in the event of the submission of a well grounded claim. If the veteran is able to obtain competent evidence tending to attribute a lung condition to service, he should file a new claim. The best evidence would consist of medical evidence tending to establish the presence of a lung condition during service or in proximity to service or otherwise attributing the condition to service. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. H. N. SCHWARTZ 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.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.