BVA9505520 DOCKET NO. 93-16 448 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the knees. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. L. Kennedy, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1968 to October 1970. This appeal arises from a December 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), New York, New York, Regional Office (RO). In that decision, the RO denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability as well as his claim of entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the knees. In August 1993, this case was remanded by letter to the RO in order to afford the veteran a personal hearing before a member of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) to be held at the RO on October 19, 1993; information in the record indicates that the veteran failed to report for that scheduled hearing. REMAND The threshold question is whether the veteran has presented evidence of a well-grounded claim. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) has held that a well-grounded claim is one that is plausible, that is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. If a claimant has not presented a well-grounded claim, his appeal must fail. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 82 (1990). Under the law, a claim for benefits need not be conclusive, but it must be accompanied by evidence. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). Where the determinative issue is one of medical causation or a diagnosis, only those with specialized medical knowledge, training, or experience are competent to provide evidence on the issue. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). The assertions of a lay party on matters of medical causation or date of inception of a disease or disability are not sufficient to make a claim well grounded. Moray v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 211 (1993). The veteran's service medical records include several entries relating to treatment for a right shoulder disability. In the veteran's application for VA compensation benefits associated with the current claim, he indicated that he received treatment for disability associated with his right shoulder and his knees at a VA medical facility from the 1970's through the 1990's. Although the record does contain some recent VA medical records relating to treatment of disorders unrelated to the current appeal, it does not appear that a request has been made for earlier records. If such records of medical treatment are available, they may serve to provide evidence of continuity of symptomatology such that would render his claim of service connection well grounded. Accordingly, his claim may be "capable of substantiation" on this basis. The VA has an obligation under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103(a), 7722 (West 1991) to advise the appellant of the evidence necessary to complete his application for benefits. In this case, the veteran is hereby notified that preliminary review indicates that the "evidence necessary to complete the application" is evidence of continuity of symptomatology; medical evidence of the existence of a current disability; and/or competent evidence that current disability is causally related to a disease or injury that was incurred or aggravated in service. Accordingly, the veteran is advised that, unless the development directed herein coincidentally provides evidence on the theories of entitlement to service connection for the disabilities at issue, he remains under the obligation to provide such evidence. The RO should elicit an accurate chronology of medical treatment received by the veteran for the disabilities at issue, beginning in the 1970's. Based on this information, the RO should procure all available records and associate them with the records assembled for appellate review. Once the development is completed, the record must again be reviewed to determine whether his claims are ultimately well grounded. In view of the foregoing, and in order to fairly and fully adjudicate the veteran's claim, the case is REMANDED to the RO for the following action: 1. The RO should request that the veteran identify all sources of medical treatment received for the disabilities at issue, since his separation from service, and furnish signed authorizations for release to the VA of private medical records in connection with each non-VA medical source he identifies. Copies of the medical records from all sources he identifies (not already in the claims folder), partricularly any pertinent VA records, should then be requested. All records obtained should be added to the claims folder. 2. If any additional information is procured, the RO should make a specific determination, based upon the complete record, whether the veteran has presented a well-grounded claim. Based on this determination, and if appropriate, the RO should accomplish any further indicated development. If the determination remains adverse to the veteran, he should be provided a supplemental statement of the case which includes a summary of the additional evidence submitted and the reasons for the decision. The veteran should be afforded the applicable time to respond. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate review. The purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional evidence and ensure that the veteran is afforded all due process of law. The Board intimates no opinion, either factual or legal, as to the ultimate conclusion warranted in this case. CHARLES E. HOGEBOOM 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. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals. This action has been taken in accordance with the Veterans' Benefits Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-446, § 303, 108 Stat. 4645, ___ (1994), and is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1994).