BVA9506119 DOCKET NO. 93-12 152 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Reynolds, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1970 to August 1972. This appeal arises from a rating decision of August 1991 from the Cleveland, Ohio, Regional Office (RO), in which service connection for PTSD was denied. The veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement. The statement of the case was issued in march 1992, and the substantive appeal was received in may 1992. The veteran testified at a personal hearing in October 1992, where the hearing officer confirmed and continued the previous denial of service connection for a nervous condition, to include PTSD. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends, in essence, that the RO erred when it denied service connection for PTSD. He specifically alleges that as part of his duties he had to put dead soldiers into body bags. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board of Veterans' Appeals (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 claim for service connection for PTSD is not well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. PTSD is not currently shown. 2. Satisfactory evidence tending to establish that the veteran has a disability as a result of PTSD has not been presented. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The threshold question that must be resolved with regard to each claim is whether the veteran has presented evidence that each claim is well grounded; that is, that each claim is plausible. If he has not, his appeal fails as to that claim, and the Board is under no duty to assist him in any further development of that claim, since such development would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). In the instant case, the evidence does not demonstrate that PTSD is currently manifested. Since service connection cannot be granted for a disability that is not currently shown, the Board must accordingly find that a claim for service connection for such a disability is not well grounded, and must be dismissed, since it does not present a question of fact or law over which the Board has jurisdiction. A review of the veteran's service medical records reveals that he was not diagnosed or treated for PTSD. Likewise, post-service medical records submitted by the veteran also fail to diagnose the veteran with PTSD. Although the veteran has testified in his personal hearing, dated in October 1992, that he experiences nightmares, sleeplessness, and is easily startled, it must be reiterated that there has not, at any time, been a diagnosis of PTSD. Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991), service connection can be granted, in part, for "disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty..."38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); see also 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131(West 1991). It necessarily follows, however, that a disability or disease must be manifested for service connection to be granted. In the absence of evidence indicating the presence of a disability or disease, a claim for service connection therefor is not plausible and accordingly not well grounded. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court), in a case in which a veteran sought service connection for hypertension, found that, "because of the absence of any evidence of current hypertension...appellant's claim is not plausible and, therefore, not well grounded." Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141,144 (1991). In the case before the Board , the veteran is seeking service connection for a disability identified as PTSD. However as discussed above, the medical evidence does not demonstrate that such a disability is currently manifested. It follows that, since no disability is shown, service connection for PTSD cannot be granted. The Court has also held that claims that are not well grounded must be dismissed by the Board. The Court has stated that: ...a veteran claiming entitlement to VA benefits has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); see Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 610-11 (1992). If a claim is not well grounded, the [Board] does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993). Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993). In other words, the Court has held that, if a claim is not well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the question of whether the benefit sought on appeal is warranted. Boeck, at 17. Since a claim that is not well grounded does not present a question of fact or law over which the board has jurisdiction, a claim that is not well grounded must be dismissed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5) (West 1991). In the case now before the Board, as previously noted, the evidence does not demonstrate that PTSD is currently manifested. Since it is not plausible that service connection can be granted for a disability that is not shown to exist, a claim for service connection for that disability is not well grounded. Accordingly, pursuant to judicial interpretation of the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is dismissed. ORDER The claim for service connection for PTSD is dismissed. LAWRENCE M. SULLIVAN 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.