BVA9506269 DOCKET NO. 93-13 408 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease with hypertension. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Paralyzed Veterans of America, Inc. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Alice A. Booher, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from March 1943 to December 1945. This appeal is from a rating action by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Denver, Colorado, in December 1992. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he developed an organic heart disorder as a result of service and that his service medical records would demonstrate that if they were available. The veteran's representative argues that the veteran's testimony is credible, that it has not been given appropriate consideration, and that absent evidence to the contrary, it must be taken as a foundation for a grant of service connection for organic heart disorder. In substance, the veteran contends that treatment for heat prostration in service was in reality treatment for a heart disorder; that he was informed in service that he had a rare blood type, and that there would be problems transfusing him if he were injured. The veteran requests that his recollections be considered as persuasive evidence in place of records of heart problems in service which were misplaced or stolen at separation from service, destroyed in a fire in the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, or disappeared when his duffel bag was lost soon after his discharge from service. 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's claim for service connection for arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease with hypertension is not well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Adequate evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appealed issue is of record. 2. There is no convincing evidence or medical opinion tending to show that the veteran's arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease with hypertension is of service origin nor that it was present to a compensable degree within a year after separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim for service connection for arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease with hypertension is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5107, 7105(d)(5) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) held that A veteran claiming entitlement to VA benefits has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107, and see Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609, 610-11 (1992). If a claim is not well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim. See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993). The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5). Service connection may be granted for disability which is the result of disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991). For the showing of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word "chronic." Continuity of symptomatology is required where the condition noted during service is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1994). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1994). Service connection for an organic heart disorder is to be granted when the disorder was incurred in or aggravated by service, or if it became manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 1112 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, 3.309 (1994). This requires a finding that there is a current disability which has a definite relationship with a disease or some other manifestation of the disability during service. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 143 (1992) and Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 542, 548 (1992). The Board has reviewed the veteran's statements in coordination with the other evidence of record. However, the Board notes that while available service medical records are not voluminous, they are not totally lacking, and among the most important record relating to service in this case, would be the separation examination report, which is in fact on file. In addition, a copy of the veteran's original entrance examination is of record, dated in March 1943, showing that the veteran's blood pressure was 128/90. Pulse, sitting, was 88. Service medical records reflect no signs, symptoms or treatment of cardiovascular disease. The separation examination dated in December 1945, included a normal chest X-ray study. The cardiovascular examination was normal, and blood pressure was 110/75, with pulse of 84 (sitting and returning thereto, two minutes after exercise) and 124 immediately after exercise. A comparison of the raw blood pressure readings at entrance with those at separation tends to show a better reading at separation, and the examination as a whole, does not corroborate that the veteran was then demonstrating any acquired heart disorder of service origin. In response to the veteran's contentions, the Board notes that the nature of the veteran's blood type is not relevant to whether he demonstrated, or was in fact treated for, an organic heart disorder in service. And the circumstances of his treatment for whatever problem was described in service as "heat prostration" or whether he was or was not anemic in service, does not, by its very nature, convert into pertinent evidence of an organic heart problem in the absence of chronic residuals, which were not shown on the separation examination. Moreover, service connection might be still possible for arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease with hypertension if the disability was shown to have been manifested to a degree of 10 percent within the year following separation from service, or if it can be demonstrated by other evidence, including post-service clinical evidence, that such an organic heart disorder was a chronic result of service. As cited above, service connection may be granted based on evidence of chronic disability reflected in records during or after service. It is in that regard that the veteran's claim is not sustainable, as there is neither persuasive evidence nor medical opinion of record associating any organic heart disorder in or proximate to service. The recollections provided by the veteran in 1993 have been reviewed, and there is no doubt regarding his sincerity in endeavoring to provide credible information. However, that remembrance, decades after service, must be weighed with the other contemporaneous objective clinical evidence of record. There are no complaints or clinical evidence of any organic heart disorder for many years after separation from service. Specifically, the post-service clinical records now in the file show no evidence of any organic heart disorder prior to the mid- 1980's; thereafter, the veteran has had various heart problems including angina, symptoms diagnosed as congestive heart failure in 1986, and the diagnosis of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease with hypertension. In addition to no credible evidence in that regard, there is also no medical opinion to support the premise, expressed by the veteran, that he developed a heart disorder in or as a result of service; the veteran is not medically trained and is not qualified to render such a medical opinion. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). In reaching it decision, the Board has taken into consideration the veteran's service medical and post-service medical records. However, absent evidence associating any heart disorder with service or appropriately proximate thereto, the Board finds that the veteran's claim is not well grounded. If the veteran were to submit clinical evidence showing that he developed an organic heart disorder in or proximate to service, his claim in this regard would be well grounded. Robinette v. Brown, No. 93-985 (U.S. Vet. App. Oct. 21, 1994). ORDER The veteran's claim for service connection for arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease with hypertension is not well grounded; the appeal is dismissed. RENÉE M. PELLETIER 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.