BVA9500360 DOCKET NO. 93-00 240 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Nancy R. Kegerreis, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1970 to July 1972 and from November 1972 to November 1974 in the United States Marines, and from October 1975 to October 1977 in the United States Navy. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a December 1991 rating decision by the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri, which denied service connection for a left knee disorder. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends, in essence, that when he joined the Marine Corps in 1970, he was not aware that he had previously received an injury to his left knee while participating in varsity sports in high school. As a result of military service, he maintains, the knee disorder was aggravated, causing him pain with occasional locking and instability. 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 appellant has not met the initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that his claim for service connection for a left knee disorder is well grounded. Therefore, this claim must be dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran did not suffer a left knee injury in service nor was he treated in service for a left knee disability. 2. In a post-service vehicular accident in 1982, the veteran's thigh and knee were run over by the front tire of an automobile. 3. A left knee disorder is currently manifested by subjective pain in the lateral knee with occasional locking and instability and by medial and lateral joint line tenderness. 4. There is no evidence of record establishing an etiological relationship between the veteran's current left knee disorder and service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran has not submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim for a left knee disorder. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION As a threshold matter, the Board must determine whether the veteran has not submitted a well-grounded claim within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1993). This section of title 38, United States Code, unequivocally places an initial burden on a claimant to produce evidence that his claim is plausible, or capable of substantiation. See Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136, 139 (1994); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993); Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 610-11 (1992). Notwithstanding the benefit of the doubt rule, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3 (1993), the claimant is not relieved of the initial burden of presenting evidence of plausibility. Id. Absent a well-grounded claim, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim, and it must be dismissed. See Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993). The veteran's service medical records contain no reference whatsoever to a left knee disorder. A pre-enlistment physical examination, dated in April 1970, made no mention of any knee disorder. Similarly, physical examinations in July 1972, November 1972, and October 1974 did not refer to a left knee disorder. Treatment records in service likewise contain no reference to a knee disorder. The first indication of a left knee injury appeared in clinical outpatient treatment notes dated in November 1982, when the veteran was serving in the Naval Reserves. It was noted that he had complained of a spasm in the left upper leg for over a week as a result of an injury the previous May, when a vehicle rolled over his left leg. He was referred to his personal physician for treatment, and his commanding officer was to be contacted concerning his ability to drill for that period. The report of a physical examination conducted in March 1987 noted a 1-inch scar on the veteran's left knee. He underwent a left knee arthroscopy in April 1987. The medical history, as reported by the veteran at that time, indicated that in 1982 the front tire of a car had rolled over his distal thigh and proximal knee. Since that time he had had chronic pain in the knee, such that he had required continual pain medications. Although a physical examination of the left knee was unremarkable, the veteran was admitted for arthroscopy of the left knee in view of his long history of chronic pain. The diagnostic arthroscopy revealed that the menisci were normal. There was no evidence of patellar chondromalacia. He appeared to have a normal tracking patella, and the anterior cruciate ligament appeared to be normal. There were no abnormalities identified. An outpatient examination in June 1991 found the left knee to be fully stable, with no laxity, with free range of motion and no crepitus. It was generally a normal examination. The examiner noted that the veteran was developing chondromalacia patella both in the left and in the right knees. In December 1991, the veteran amended his February 1990 claim to include service connection for a left knee injury, which he claimed had existed prior to service, but was aggravated by military service. In April 1992, the veteran underwent another left knee arthroscopy for the purpose of ruling out internal derangement. His medical history noted that one year prior to this operation he developed pain in the area of the lateral knee with occasional locking and instability by history. Magnetic resonance imaging was consistent with a possible lateral meniscal tear. A physical examination showed no effusion and full range of motion. He had medial and lateral joint line tenderness. A Lachman's test was negative. The operation was completed without complications. The final diagnosis was degenerative articular cartilage, lateral tibial plateau, left knee. Following a careful review of all pertinent evidence of record, the Board finds that the veteran's claims of aggravation of a pre-service injury are simply not credible. There is no evidence in any of the medical records of a pre-service injury to the left knee, no evidence of any left knee injury in service, no evidence of any treatment for a left knee disorder in service, and no evidence of any difficulty with the left knee until approximately five years after service, when the veteran reported pain as a result of an automobile accident. Furthermore, the Board notes that there is no medical evidence of record linking, in any way, a left knee disability to the veteran's period of military service. Where a claimed disability is not shown in service, there is no medical evidence linking the claimed disorder to service or an in-service event or occurrence, or the disorder is not currently demonstrated, the claim is not well grounded. See Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 143 (1992); Fields v. Derwinski, No. 90-933 (U.S. Vet.App. Dec. 2, 1991). On the basis of the foregoing, the Board finds that the veteran's claim is not plausible and must be dismissed. ORDER The claim for service connection for a left knee disorder is dismissed. JACQUELINE E. MONROE 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.