Citation Nr: 0003954 Decision Date: 02/15/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 98-04 979A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Houston, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for chemical exposure of the eyes. 2. Entitlement to service connection for groin strain. 3. Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder bursitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. McCain Parson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1990 to November 1995. These matters come before the Board of Veteran's Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 1997 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. Effective March 1, 1999, the United States Court of Veterans Appeals changed its name to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (hereinafter, "the Court"). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is no competent medical evidence of a presently existing groin strain or left shoulder bursitis. 2. The claim of entitlement to service connection for chemical exposure to the eyes is not supported by cognizable evidence showing a current disability related to his period of service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claims of entitlement to service connection for chemical exposure to the eyes, a groin strain, and left shoulder bursitis are not well-grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that the current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated coincident with service in the Armed Forces. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (1999). The threshold question to be answered is whether the veteran has presented evidence "sufficient to justify a belief in a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well- grounded." See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). A claim that is well-grounded is plausible, meritorious on its own, or capable of substantiation. See Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 393 (1996). Generally, a well-grounded claim for service connection requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in- service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in- service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 504, 506 (1995); see also Epps v. Gober 126 F.3d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Expressly adopting definition of well-grounded claim set forth in Caluza, supra). The second and third Caluza elements can be satisfied under 38 C.F.R. 3.303(b) by (a) evidence that the condition was "noted" during service or during an applicable presumptive period; (b) evidence showing post-service continuity of symptomatology; and (c) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the post-service symptomatology. See 38 C.F.R. 3.303(b); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495-97 (1997). For the purpose of determining whether a claim is well-grounded, the credibility of the evidence in support of the claim must be presumed. See Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 75 (1995). Service department records reflect that the veteran's military occupational specialty was aerospace propulsion journeyman, jet engine, for 4 years and 11 months. The SF 93, Report of Medical History, completed by the veteran and reviewed by a medical corpsman on enlistment in February 1990 reflects that the veteran wore glasses and had vision in both eyes. He denied having or having had a painful or "trick" shoulder or elbow, or rupture or hernia. He reported sustaining fractures of the left distal 4th and 5th metacarpals at age 13 which was asymptomatic. An enlistment medical examination is not of record. Service medical records for the period from October 1990 to November 1995 reflect that the veteran was evaluated for: (1) left shoulder pain, in April 1992, February 1993, and March 1993, diagnosed as acromioclavicular joint pain with scapular bursitis and recurrent left shoulder bursitis, respectively; (2) jet fluid exposure to the eyes in February 1995 with an initial visual acuity of 20/30 and 20/25 that was treated with erythromycin eye ointment and a subsequent visual acuity in the left and right eye of 20/15 in February 1995; and (3) right groin pain alternatively diagnosed as possible hernia, epididymitis, "pulled tube, inflamed muscle", right urogenital diaphragm strain/medialis strain at insertion, and probably strained right groin muscle on multiple examinations in May 1995. He was issued a profile that restricted lifting. The veteran completed a medical history in September 1995 for separation. He did not report having or having had eye or vision problems, joint pains, or abdominal/ genitourinary complaints. The separation examination conducted in September 1995 reflects that the evaluations of the eyes, ophthalmoscopic, pupils, ocular motility, genitourinary system, testicular, and abdomen and viscera to include hernia were normal. The upper extremities were evaluated as normal with the exception of the history for fractured knuckles on the left hand that was without weakness, deformity, or limitation of motion. The veteran's visual acuity, distant and near, was 20/17 in the right and left eyes. He had a normal field of vision in both eyes. The only defects noted on the separation examination were dental caries. A typed notation affixed to the February 1990 SF 93 dated in September 1995 and signed by a medical corpsman in October 1995 reflects "no interval medical or surgical history to report since last examination dated [February 2, 1990]." The veteran separated from service in November 1995. A series of VA examinations were conducted in November 1996 with the veteran providing essentially the same history as reflected above. In brief, the VA general medical examination conducted in November 1996 reflects, inter alia, that the musculoskeletal system was negative and that the veteran had some jet engine fuel in his eyes but did not wear any refractive lenses. The general medical examination reflects that in April 1995, while straining and lifting some heavy objects, he developed pain in his right testis. He did develop some swelling for a few days, not very much. He was given a profile for lifting. He was told that he had strained something. The veteran reported that [groin] occasionally bothered him when he strained. The physical examination did not reflect a hernia. The testicles were of normal size, configuration, and location. There was no swelling or tenderness of the epididymis or the cords. The diagnosis was traumatic epididymitis in 1995 and no problems currently. The November 1996 VA visual examination reflects that there were no medical records to review, and that the veteran got jet fluid in his eyes in 1993 and aircraft cleaning fluid in his eyes in 1995. The veteran complained that his vision was hazy after the incident, that he was sensitive to sunlight, that he saw squiggly lines when looking at the sky, and that his eyes become tired 15 minutes after reading. The diagnoses were (1) history of chemical injury with no residual scars, (2) photophobia, (3) entoptic phenomenon, and (4) asthenopia. The November 1996 VA joints examination reflects that "he does appear likely to have some discomfort in the left shoulder." Examination of the shoulder showed no evidence of deltoid atrophy. A December 1996 x-ray study of the left shoulder reflects no gross bony or soft tissue abnormalities. The diagnostic impression was history of bursitis of the left shoulder. A threshold element to a well-grounded claim is that the veteran must have a currently diagnosed disability. The Board acknowledges the veteran's assertions that he incurred injuries or disabilities to his left shoulder, eyes, and groin while in-service and that his current symptoms are similar to those in-service. It is not disputed that he did receive evaluation and treatment for these conditions in- service. In this regard, lay statements are considered to be competent evidence when describing the features or symptoms of an injury or illness. See Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 405 (1995). However, as in this case, the post service evidence does not provide a current diagnosis of right groin strain or left shoulder bursitis. The evidence of record post service reflects history of bursitis of the left shoulder and traumatic epididymitis in 1995 - no problems currently. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (Absent "proof of a present disability[,] there can be no valid claim"). While the November 1996 VA vision examination reflects the following diagnoses: (1) history of chemical injury with no residual scars, (2) photophobia, (3) entoptic phenomenon, and (4) asthenopia, these findings have not been related to the veteran's period of service by the medical opinion. See Sanchez-Benitez v. West, No. 97-1948 (U.S. Vet. App. Dec. 29, 1999) (The phrase "history of" provides no indication that the examiner, based on his medical expertise, found any disability relating back to service). Without competent medical evidence of a current disability that is related to a disease or injury in-service, the claims for service connection are not well-grounded. See Voerth v. West, 13 Vet. App. 117 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 489, 504, 506 (1995). Because the veteran cannot meet his initial burden by relying on his own opinion as to medical matters and he has submitted no cognizable evidence to support his claims, the claims for service connection for chemical exposure to the eyes, a groin strain, and left shoulder bursitis are not well-grounded and must be denied. If the veteran fails to submit evidence in support of a plausible claim, the VA is under no duty to assist the veteran in any further development of the claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (1999) (VA cannot assist a claimant in developing a claim that is not well-grounded). Further, the veteran's burden to submit evidence sufficient to establish a well-grounded claim is the veteran's alone and is not relieved by the benefit of the doubt provision. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As the foregoing discussion explains the need for competent evidence of a current disability which is linked by competent medical evidence to service, the Board views its previous discussion as sufficient to inform the veteran of the elements necessary to complete his application for service connection for the claimed disabilities. See Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 79 (1995). ORDER Service connection for chemical exposure of the eyes, a groin strain, and left shoulder bursitis is denied. Deborah W. Singleton Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals