BVA9504952 DOCKET NO. 93-06 733 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left knee injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Lori R. Bucci, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 1950 to July 1952. This appeal arises from a rating decision in February 1992 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he currently suffers from a left knee disorder as a result of two injuries he suffered during active service. More specifically, he asserts that during basic training he injured his left knee and was hospitalized for approximately one month. He then reinjured his left knee while in Korea and was treated at the field hospital for one week. 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 claim for service connection for residuals of a left knee injury is not well grounded and must be dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left knee injury is not supported by cognizable evidence showing that the claim is plausible or capable of substantiation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left knee injury is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Factual Background The veteran's service medical records were apparently lost in the fire at the National Personnel Records Center in 1973. Available sick call and morning reports reveal that the veteran was hospitalized from October 27, 1950 to November 29, 1950 for an unlisted condition. In May 1991 at a VA outpatient clinic, the veteran gave the history that he had injured his left kneecap twice and complained of increased pain and "some giving way" of his left knee. He was advised that his knee was non-service connected and no treatment was rendered. The examiner requested an orthopedic consultation, but no appointment was made in view of the non-service connected status of the veteran’s knee. In a June 1991 medical statement, John A. Ward, M.D., a private physician, wrote that he had treated the veteran for over thirty years. He indicated that he was aware of a "service related" knee injury but had never treated the veteran for this knee injury. Dr. Ward's treatment records from 1952 until 1989 are silent for any treatment of the veteran's left knee. In a notarized March 1992 "buddy" statement, Reverend R. Austin Kelley, Sr. stated that while in basic training in the last week of October, the veteran injured his left knee and was hospitalized for one month. Analysis The Board has determined that the veteran's claim is not "well grounded' within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). That is, the veteran has failed to meet his initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that his claim is plausible or capable of substantiation. As such, there is no duty to assist the veteran in developing his case, and his claim must be dismissed. Service connection for residuals of a left knee injury may be granted if the disorder was incurred or aggravated during the veteran's active duty service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991). When a condition is not noted to have been chronic in service, continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a claim of entitlement to service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994). In this case, even if it is conceded for the purpose of this decision that the veteran sustained injuries to his left knee in service, no competent evidence has been submitted linking whatever left knee disorder the veteran may currently have to his active duty service. Indeed, the record contains no cognizable evidence showing a continuity of left knee symptomatology since service. In this regard, a review of post service treatment records provided by John A. Ward, M.D. reveals no complaints or findings pertaining to a chronic left knee disorder during the period between August 1952 and September 1989. Indeed, Dr. Ward himself admits that he has never treated the veteran for a left knee disorder. Thus, it is apparent that Dr. Ward’s description that the veteran’s left knee was disabled by a "service related" injury, is a description based not on an examination of the veteran, or a review of post service medical treatment records, but rather a description based solely on the history presented by the veteran himself. Hence, such a "diagnosis" is no better than the facts alleged by the veteran himself. Swann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 229, 233 (1993). Hence, while the veteran is competent to offer a history of his inservice and postservice symptomatology, he is not competent to inform either Dr. Ward or the Board that his current left knee disorder is directly related to any left knee injury sustained inservice. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). As a well grounded claim must be supported by cognizable evidence, Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992), the absence of such cognizable evidence renders this claim not well grounded. In reaching this decision the Board did consider the sworn statement of Reverend Kelley. While Reverend Kelley is competent to offer evidence as to whether or not the veteran sustained a left knee injury in service Reverend Kelly, like the veteran, is not shown to be trained in the field of medicine, and thus his opinion has no probative weight in establishing whether or not the veteran has a current left knee disability which is a chronic residual of any injury sustained in service. Consistent with the duty set forth in 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) to notify the claimant of what evidence is necessary to make this claim well grounded, the veteran should understand that this claim would be well grounded if evidence from a competent medical professional or source (e.g., physician, orthopedist, etc.) provided an opinion that the veteran incurred or aggravated a left knee disorder while on active duty which is directly related to any current left knee disorder. Although the Board considered and denied this appeal on a ground different from that of the RO, which denied the claim on the merits, the veteran is not prejudiced by this decision. This is because in assuming that the claim was well grounded, the RO accorded the veteran greater consideration than his claim in fact warranted under the circumstances. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384, 392-94 (1993). To remand this case to the RO for consideration of the issue of whether the veteran's claim is well grounded would be pointless and, in light of the law cited above, would not result in a determination favorable to him. VA O.G.C. Prec. Op. 16-92, 57 Fed.Reg. 49,747 (1992). ORDER The claim for service connection for residuals of a left knee injury is dismissed. DEREK R. BROWN 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.