BVA9507778 DOCKET NO. 93-10 122 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a hemorrhoidectomy. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an infection of the left thumb. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. G. Mazzucchelli, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1948 to August 1954. This appeal arises from September 1991 and subsequent rating decisions of the Detroit, Michigan, regional office (RO). The September 1991 rating decision denied service connection for residuals of a hemorrhoidectomy and for residuals of an infection of the right thumb. At his personal hearing at the RO in December 1992, the veteran stated that is was actually his left thumb that had been infected in service and for which he was now claiming service connection. A January 1993 rating decision denied service connection for residuals of an infection of the left thumb. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he underwent a hemorrhoidectomy in service in 1953. He contends that he has current residuals of this procedure, including a hemorrhoidal tag. He also contends that his left thumb became infected as a result of his cleaning syringes and needles as part of his duties as an operating room technician in service, and that he now has a residual scar on that thumb. His representative requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the veteran's favor. 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 veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a hemorrhoidectomy and for residuals of an infection of the left thumb. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The RO has obtained all relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's claim. 2. The veteran did not have a hemorrhoidectomy or a left thumb infection during service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A chronic hemorrhoid disability was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (1994). 2. A chronic left thumb disability was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant's claims are well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a)(West 1991). That is, he has presented claims that are plausible. The veteran has scar on his left thumb and has submitted a lay statement to the effect that he was hospitalized for a surgical procedure during service. The RO has contacted the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in an attempt to confirm that the veteran was hospitalized during service. The record does not suggest the presence of obtainable relevant evidence that is not of record. All relevant facts have been properly developed and no further assistance is required to comply with the duty to assist mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991). The regulations further 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) (1994). The veteran contends that he underwent a hemorrhoidectomy at the U.S. Army field hospital where he was stationed in Wurzburg, West Germany, in the summer of 1953. He also contends that he was treated for a left thumb infection at the same location in 1952. Unfortunately, most of the veteran's service medical records were destroyed in a fire at the NPRC in 1973. The only available record is the service separation examination conducted in August 1954. No rectal, anal, upper extremity, or skin abnormalities were found on that examination, and no history of thumb infection or hemorrhoidectomy was noted. The RO has contacted the NPRC in an attempt to verify the veteran's contentions. No Surgeon General's Office records were available. The morning reports of the veteran's unit for the period from June to October 1953 showed that the veteran was assigned to the organization, however, no remarks were shown pertaining to any illness or hospitalization. The veteran has submitted written statements and oral testimony to the effect that he received treatment on an informal basis by doctors with whom he worked and that no records were kept of his treatments. He also stated that his post-service treatments for a hemorrhoid condition were also provided by co-workers or relatives who are now deceased or unavailable, and that no records were kept of these treatments. He has submitted a written statement, dated in May 1992, from a co-worker during service who stated that she recalled that the veteran had been a patient in the hospital in which they both worked for two to three weeks in July or August 1953 due to an operation, which she recalled as a hemorrhoidectomy. The Board must assess the credibility of statements pursuant to the appeal. O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 365 (1991); Ferguson v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 428 (1991). I do not doubt the veracity of the statements of the veteran and his former co-worker, however, they are not supported by the available service personnel and medical records, which were prepared contemporaneously with the veteran's service and which are necessarily more reliable than lay recollections made nearly 40 years later. The morning reports do not show that the veteran was ill or hospitalized or that he was off duty for a period of weeks during the period in which the veteran allegedly had a hemorrhoidectomy. Similarly, the service separation examination does not contain any history or findings pertaining to the claimed conditions. In his hearing testimony, the veteran stated that for approximately six months beginning in January 1952 he was listed under an erroneous spelling of his name (Jargo) in certain personnel records and that this resulted in his not receiving his salary during that period. He did not directly suggest that any medical records could have been mislabelled. The 1952 period would possibly encompass the time when the veteran contends that he had the left thumb infection; however, he has stated that he was given penicillin by a doctor with whom he worked and that no records were kept of this treatment. Therefore, a search for records of treatment for the thumb injury would, by the veteran's own admission, not yield any results. As the name discrepancy was apparently resolved in 1952, it would not have any bearing on the claimed hospitalization in July or August 1953. Furthermore, the personnel records from that period show that the veteran was listed under the correct name. Accordingly, I have concluded that a records search under the name Jargo is not indicated, as it would be wasteful of time and resources and ultimately fruitless. The veteran has not undergone a VA examination to determine whether any residuals of thumb infection or hemorrhoidectomy are currently present. I have determined that an examination would serve no purpose in this case. An examiner in 1995 would be able to determine whether there are now identifiable residuals of a hemorrhoidectomy, but would not be able to discern on examine when, exactly, the surgery occurred. Likewise, an examiner could identify the current presence of a scar on the thumb, but could not, by examination, determine when, exactly, the scar was incurred. The examiner would be dependent upon the history given by the veteran. Assuming for the sake of argument that the veteran does have a scar on his left thumb and identifiable residuals of a hemorrhoidectomy, an examination now would not link any current findings to service more than 40 years ago . There is no basis except the lay statements, which have been contradicted by the surviving contemporaneous records, upon which to conclude that the claimed disabilities are related to service. I conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. The evidence is not in relative equipoise; therefore, no reasonable doubt issue is raised. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b)(West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (1994). Under these circumstances, I must deny the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a hemorrhoidectomy and for residuals of an infection of the left thumb. ORDER Service connection for residuals of a hemorrhoidectomy is denied. Service connection for residuals of an infection of the left thumb is denied. MARY GALLAGHER 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.