Citation Nr: 0005816 Decision Date: 03/03/00 Archive Date: 03/14/00 DOCKET NO. 97-29 207A ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of dental trauma, for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Keith W. Allen, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty in the military from December 1953 to December 1958. In March 1997, the VA RO in New York, New York, denied the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma-which he is requesting for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment. He appealed the RO's decision to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). In his October 1997 Substantive Appeal (on VA Form 9, Appeal to the Board), the veteran requested a hearing at the RO before a Member of the Board. The RO scheduled his hearing for January 10, 2000, but he failed to report for it. He has not contacted VA during the weeks since to explain his absence or to request that his hearing be rescheduled. Therefore, the Board deems his request for a travel Board hearing withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d) (1999). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is no medical or other evidence of record suggesting the veteran sustained dental trauma to any of his teeth while serving on active duty in the military, or that he currently has a dental disability that is otherwise related to his military service. 2. The veteran has not submitted a plausible claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma-for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for residuals of dental trauma-for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment-is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The veteran alleges that he is entitled to treatment in a VA outpatient dental clinic because some of his upper teeth were extracted during service and replaced with dentures. He says those extractions were tantamount to a finding of dental trauma. Service connection may be granted for a dental disease or injury of individual teeth and the investing tissue-if shown by the evidence to have been incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(b). As to each noncompensable service-connected dental condition, a determination will be made as to whether it is due to a combat wound or other service trauma, or whether the veteran was interned as a prisoner of war (POW). 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(b). Treatable carious teeth and replaceable missing teeth, among other dental conditions, are not disabling, and will be considered service connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for VA outpatient dental treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(a) (formerly found at 38 C.F.R. § 4.149). The governing VA regulations further stipulate various categories of eligibility for VA outpatient dental treatment-such as veterans having a compensable service- connected dental condition (Class I eligibility); one-time treatment for veterans having a noncompensable service- connected dental condition, provided they apply for treatment within a year after service (Class II eligibility); those having a noncompensable service-connected dental condition adjudicated as resulting from a combat wound or other service trauma (Class II(a) eligibility); and those who were detained as a POW (Class II(b) and Class II(c) eligibility), etc. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1712; 38 C.F.R. § 17.161. In order for a claim to be well grounded, there must be competent evidence of a current disability in the form of a medical diagnosis, of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in the form of lay or medical evidence, and of a nexus between the inservice injury or disease and the current disability in the form of medical evidence. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). The veteran's service dental records confirm that he received treatment for several of his teeth while on active duty in the military-mostly involving cleaning and filling those that had cavities (numbers 3, 6, 11, 12, 18, 20, and 31). He also was missing certain teeth when initially examined (numbers 14, 19 and 30), and he underwent root canal therapy (on tooth number 6) and had others extracted and replaced with a denture (numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10). There are no dental records on file indicating he has experienced any further problems with his teeth during the years since his discharge from the military in December 1958. There are records, however, indicating the RO granted service connection for two of his teeth (numbers 3 and 6) in July 1960. When filing his current claim in November 1996, the veteran indicated that he is requesting service connection only for the "extraction [of his] upper teeth" during service-for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment. However, in a precedent opinion, VAOPGCPREC 5-97 (Jan. 22, 1997; revised Feb. 25, 1997), the VA General Counsel held that the term "service trauma," as used for the purpose of determining eligibility for VA outpatient dental treatment on a Class II(a) basis, does not encompass teeth extracted during service. Therefore, that obviously is not favorable to the veteran's claim. But furthermore, he is not shown to be entitled to service connection or treatment under any of the other possible classes of eligibility. For instance, there could be no eligibility for Class I dental care since his conditions are noncompensable. He also does not allege, and the evidence does not otherwise suggests, that he applied for dental treatment within a year of his release from active duty, so there could be no eligibility for one-time Class II treatment for any service-connected noncompensable dental condition. He also was not a POW, which could otherwise provide a basis of entitlement under Classes II(b) and II(c). Further, there is no medical evidence indicating he currently has any problems with his teeth (i.e., medical evidence of a current disability) or of any relationship between current disability and the asserted inservice dental trauma (i.e., medical evidence of nexus), which are fundamental requirements for service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992), Since the veteran has not submitted any evidence suggesting that his claim is at least plausible or capable of substantiation, it must be denied as not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Woodson v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 352 (1995). In the absence of a well-grounded claim, there is no "duty to assist" him in developing the evidence pertinent to his claim. See Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (1999); Epps, 126 F.3d at 1468 (1997). Moreover, the Board is aware of no circumstances in this case that would put VA on notice that any additional relevant evidence may exist that, if obtained, would make the claim well grounded. See McKnight v. Gober, 131 F.3d 1483, 1485 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The RO denied the veteran's claim on the same basis as the Board-as not well grounded. Obviously then, he is not prejudiced by the Board's decision to deny his claim in this manner. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 392-93 (1993). The RO also apprised him in the October 1997 Statement of the Case, and more recently in the March 1999 Supplemental Statements of the Case, of the need to submit medical evidence showing that his claim is well grounded. Therefore, the Board considers this decision as sufficient to inform him of the evidence necessary to well ground his claim and warrant further consideration on the merits. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 1999); Franzen v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 235, 238 (1996); Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 77-78 (1995). ORDER As evidence of a well-grounded claim has not been submitted, service connection for residuals of dental trauma-for the purpose of receiving VA outpatient dental treatment-is denied. BARBARA B. COPELAND Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals