BVA9507985 
DOCKET NO.  93-14 791     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in
Cleveland, Ohio

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for defective hearing.

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: AMVETS

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

W. H. Wetmore, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from June 1957 to November
1960.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) received this case on
appeal from an August 1992 RO rating decision.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran contends that he injured his ears during training to
be a submariner in service.  He claims that he bled from his ears
while engaged in a drill that required that he surface from a
depth of 50 or 100 feet of water.

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 veteran has not met the initial burden of
submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and
impartial individual that he has presented a well-grounded claim
of service connection.

FINDING OF FACT

No competent evidence has been submitted to show that the veteran
has defective hearing due to disease or injury in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The veteran has not submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim
of service connection for defective hearing.  38 U.S.C.A.
§§ 1131, 5107, 7104 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.385
(1994).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The threshold question to be answered is whether the veteran has
presented a well-grounded claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991);
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990).  A well-grounded
claim is defined as a "plausible claim, one which is meritorious
on its own or capable of substantiation."  Murphy v. Derwinski, 1
Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990).  In short, VA is not required to
adjudicate a claim until after the veteran has met his initial
burden of submitting a well-grounded one.

"Although the claim need not be conclusive, the statute [§ 5107]
provides that [the claim] must be accompanied by evidence" in
order to be considered well grounded.  Tirpak v. Derwinski,
2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992).  In a claim of service connection,
this means that evidence must be presented which in some fashion
links the claimed disability to a period of military service or
an already service-connected disability.  See 38 U.S.C.A §§ 1110,
1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310 (1993); Tirpak v.
Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App.
91 (1993).

The claims file, as it is currently constituted, shows that the
veteran's service medical records do not include any complaints
or findings of defective hearing.  Attempts to obtain records
dealing with the reported episode of injury in service have been
unsuccessful.  The medical evidence after his separation from
active duty consists of a July 1992 VA examination which includes
a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural defective hearing, but
provides no basis for relating the onset of such hearing deficit
to service.

The veteran asserts that his currently demonstrated defective
hearing has been present since an event in service; however, he
has produced no medical evidence to support this allegation.  His
unsupported lay assertions concerning a question of medical
causation or diagnosis cannot constitute evidence for the purpose
of establishing a plausible or well-grounded claim.  See Espiritu
v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992).

The Board notes the request for further development to obtain
service medical documents; however, the requested development is
not indicated, given the previous efforts to obtain such records
and the fact that the service medical documents appear to be
complete.  Moreover, the United States Court of Veterans Appeals
has strongly questioned the propriety of development of the
record when the claim is not well grounded based on the record
available.  See Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994).

Since the claim is not well grounded, the veteran's claim is
dismissed.  See Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14 (1993).

ORDER

As a well-grounded claim of service connection for defective
hearing is not presented, the appeal of this claim is dismissed.
The RO should take appropriate adjudicatory action consistent
with this decision in regard to this matter.

          STEPHEN L. WILKINS
          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.