BVA9505169 DOCKET NO. 93-04 852 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for ulcer disease and/or indigestion. 3. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an ingrown toenail of the left great toe. 4. Entitlement to service connection for headaches. 5. Entitlement to service connection for eye disability. 6. Entitlement to service connection for disability manifested by leg cramps. 7. Entitlement to service connection for liver disease. 8. Entitlement to service connection for disability manifested by motion sickness. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Milo H. Hawley, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from August 1969 to August 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from January 1991 and April 1992 rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Louisville, Kentucky (RO), which denied entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, and ulcers, indigestion, ingrown toenail of the left big toe, headaches, eye disability, leg cramps, liver disease, kidney stones, hypertension, and motion sickness, respectively. Although the veteran disagreed with these denials, a statement or supplemental statement of the case has not been issued with respect to the issues of service connection for hypertension and kidney stones. Since an appeal has been initiated with respect to the issues of entitlement to service connection for hypertension and kidney stones, these issues are referred to the RO for appropriate development. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL It is contended that as a result of the veteran's service in Vietnam as a combat medic, during which time he participated in patrols and fire fights by treating wounded, he received shrapnel wounds to his own back. It is also asserted that the veteran experienced ulcer disease and/or indigestion, an ingrown toenail of the left great toe, headaches, eye trouble, leg cramps, liver disease, and motion sickness during his active service. Therefore, service connection for these disabilities should be granted. 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 with respect to the issue of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder a preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the veteran has post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of his active service, and with respect to the issues of service connection for ulcer disease and/or indigestion, an ingrown toenail of the left great toe, headaches, eye disability, disability manifested by leg cramps, liver disease, and disability manifested by motion sickness, the veteran has not met the initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. With respect to the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder, all relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. Recognizable stressors sufficient to result in post-traumatic stress disorder are not demonstrated during the veteran's service, and he does not have post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of that service. 3. The claims for service connection for ulcer disease and/or indigestion, an ingrown toenail of the left great toe, headaches, eye disability, disability manifested by leg cramps, liver disease, and disability manifested by motion sickness, are not supported by cognizable evidence showing that the claims are plausible or capable of substantiation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Post-traumatic stress disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by the veteran's active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991). 2. The claims for service connection for ulcer disease and/or indigestion, an ingrown toenail of the left great toe, headaches, eye disability, disability manifested by leg cramps, liver disease and disability manifested by motion sickness are not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder The veteran's claim is "well grounded" within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. The Board is satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed and that no further assistance is required to comply with the duty to assist mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. Service personnel records reflect that the veteran undertook his basic combat training in August 1969 at Fort Knox, Kentucky. In October 1969 he was transferred to Fort Sam Houston, Texas. A January 1970 entry reflects that the veteran was en route to Thailand, but a subsequent January 1970 entry reflects that rather than going to Thailand, the veteran was transferred to Fort Knox, Kentucky as a medical corpsman. In March 1970 he was transferred from Fort Knox to Oakland, California. Later in March 1970 he was transferred from Oakland, California, to Hawaii. He remained in Hawaii from March 1970 until the first part of December 1970 when he returned to Fort Knox, Kentucky. Service medical records reflect that the veteran's station and organization, following his Fort Knox, Kentucky, assignment in January 1970, was Company B, 425th Support Battalion, 4th Brigade, 25th Infantry, Quad F Dispensary, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. Service medical records also reflect that on June 2, 1970, an upper gastrointestinal series was performed on the veteran at Schofield Barracks in Hawaii. On July 8, 1970, he was seen at the optometry clinic of the Schofield Barracks dispensary. The veteran's DD Form 214 states that he had Vietnam service from March 16, 1970, to November 2, 1970. The report of a January 1972 VA examination indicates that the medical history on page 1 of VA Form 21-2545 was completed by the veteran and is written in first person. It states that he was treated at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii for hiatal hernia and ulcer from March 1970 to November 1970. The report of a February 1983 VA examination, VA Form 21-2545, page 1, is typewritten and reflects that the veteran served in the Army, being stationed in Hawaii, and worked as an Army medic. The reports of November 1990 private psychiatric and November 1991 VA psychiatric examinations reflect that the veteran reported, to the examiners, that he served in Vietnam for seven months and received shrapnel wounds to his back. Both of these reports reflect that a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder was made. Although the veteran reported during the November 1991 VA psychiatric examination that he was treated for stress in Hawaii for a 2- to 3-week duration, he testified during his personal hearing that he never was in Hawaii, and went straight to Vietnam from the United States. The veteran has submitted statements and offered testimony that he was a combat medic in Vietnam, but he cannot remember where he was stationed in Vietnam. In December 1990 the veteran submitted a statement and copies of his service medical records. The June 1970 report of his upper gastrointestinal series and the July 1970 record with respect to his optometry visit were included. With respect to the report of the upper gastrointestinal series, the original contained two stamps on it in the lower left hand corner and upper right hand corner which indicated that the upper gastrointestinal series had been performed at Schofield Barracks. The record concerning his eyes contained a stamp in the upper left hand corner which indicated that the veteran had been treated at the optometry clinic at Schofield Barracks. When the copies submitted by the veteran were photocopied, the photocopying had been accomplished in such a manner as to redact the stamps which indicated that the treatment had been rendered at Schofield Barracks. Other service medical records submitted by the veteran at the same time continued to contain stamps reflecting the location of the treating facility. On the basis of the above record the question of whether the veteran ever served in Vietnam arises. The evidence supporting a finding that the veteran had service in Vietnam includes his DD- 214, an official record, and statements and testimony offered by the veteran, beginning in August 1990. Evidence against a finding that the veteran had service in Vietnam includes his service personnel records, service medical records, the veteran's first party statements on the report of the January 1972 VA examination and the record made on the report of the February 1983 VA examination. The Board finds that the veteran's service personnel records, which indicate no service in Vietnam, but rather service in Hawaii from March 1970 to December 1970, and the veteran's service medical records which reflect that he was treated at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, on June 2, 1970, and again on July 8, 1970, are more probative than his DD-214 which reflects Vietnam service from March 1970 to November 1970. The reason for this finding is because the DD-214 was not completed contemporaneous with the veteran's service in Vietnam, whereas the service personnel record would have been completed contemporaneous with each of the veteran's moves, and the veteran's service medical records were completed contemporaneous with the time of his treatment. With respect to the statements and testimony offered by the veteran an inconsistency is shown. Initially after the veteran's discharge he did not indicate any service in Vietnam, but rather indicated that he had served in Hawaii from March through November 1970. In 1983 he continued to indicate service in Hawaii. Beginning in 1990 the veteran began to claim that he had served in Vietnam. However, statements thereafter are inconsistent on whether he had any service in Hawaii. He has stated both that he was treated in Hawaii for 2 or 3 weeks, and that he never went to Hawaii at all. Further, he has submitted copies of service medical records which have the information redacted which reflects that treatment indicated on those records occurred in Hawaii. On the basis that the veteran has made contradicting statements, submitted evidence which has information as to the location of treatment redacted, statements that he had no service in Hawaii when official service personnel and medical records reflect otherwise, as well as the veteran's general account of his service in Vietnam, including the fact that he is unable to remember where he was stationed in Vietnam, the Board finds that the veteran's statements and testimony with respect to his lack of service in Hawaii, as well as his statements and testimony with respect to any service in Vietnam are not credible. As the statements by the veteran with respect to a lack of service in Hawaii, as well as service in Vietnam from March 1970 to November 1970 are found to not be credible, they are of no probative value and will be given no weight in this decision. On the basis of the above analysis the preponderance of the evidence, based upon weight given the probative value of service personnel records and service medical records, supports a finding that the veteran served in Hawaii from March 1970 to December 1970, and had no service in Vietnam. Since the veteran had no service in Vietnam, the medical opinions which indicate that he has post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of that service, have been rendered on the basis of an inaccurate factual premise and are, therefore, found to have only minimal, if any, probative value. Therefore, service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder may not be granted because this disability is not shown to exist as a result of active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107. II. Remaining Issues The threshold question to be answered with respect to the issues of entitlement to service connection for ulcer disease and/or indigestion, ingrown toenail left great toe, headaches, eye disability, disability manifested by leg cramps, liver disease, and disability manifested by motion sickness, is whether the veteran has presented evidence of well-grounded claims; that is, claims which are plausible. If he has not presented well- grounded claims, his appeal must fail and there is no duty to assist him further in the development of these claims because such additional development would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. As will be explained below, the Board finds that his claims which are addressed in this part of the decision are not well grounded. Service medical records reflect that an upper gastrointestinal series was performed in June 1970. No intrinsic duodenal abnormalities were seen. A small sized hiatus hernia was demonstrated. The report of a January 1972 VA upper gastrointestinal series states that there was some minimal esophageal hiatal hernia, but the remainder of the stomach, duodenal bulb, and duodenal loop was normal. Service medical records also reflect that the veteran had an ingrown toenail removed from the left great toe in November 1969. The impression was chronic ingrown toenail of the left great toe. Subsequent service medical records, dated later in November 1969, reflect that his left great toe was healing nicely. Remaining service medical records, including the report of his July 1971 service separation examination, reflect no disability with respect to the left great toe. The report of a December 1991 VA examination states that there was an early ingrown toenail on the left great toe. Service medical records reflect that the veteran was seen in August 1969 and July 1970 concerning his eyes. In August 1969 glasses were prescribed. In July 1970 the veteran complained of headaches and blurry vision and indicated that he believed his glasses needed to be changed. Refractive error of the eye is not a disease or injury within the meaning of applicable legislation for disability compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.9 (1993). No other disease or disability with respect to the veteran's eyes was identified. Nor was any disease or disability with respect to his complaints of headaches identified. Service medical records are silent for complaint, finding, or treatment of leg cramps, liver disease, or motion sickness, during the veteran's active service. The report of his July 1971 service separation examination indicates no pertinent abnormality with respect to any of the disabilities currently being discussed. Service connection has been granted for hiatal hernia, evaluated as 10 percent disabling from August 1971. Ulcers or other chronic disability manifested by indigestion has not been shown by the clinical evidence to have existed during active service or within one year following final service discharge. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1111, 1112, 1113 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, 3.309 (1993). Although the ingrown toenail of the left great toe was identified as chronic during service, it was removed and no residuals as a result are shown during active service, nor is the early ingrown toenail on the left great toe currently identified as being related to service. Chronic disability manifested by headaches, leg cramps, or motion sickness is not identified during active service, nor is any current disability relating to headaches, leg cramps or motion sickness, identified as being related to active service. Disability of the eyes during active service, exclusive of refractive error, is not shown, nor is liver disease. Disease of the liver is not indicated within one year following final service discharge, nor is any currently identified liver disease associated with active service. Nor is current disability of the eye associated clinically with active service. While the veteran has made statements and offered testimony asserting a relationship between currently claimed disabilities and service, causative factors of a disease is a medical question and only a physician's opinion would be competent evidence. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). As the veteran has failed to submit medical evidence showing a relationship between any currently manifested ulcers and/or indigestion, ingrown toenail of the left toe, headaches, eye disease, disability manifested by leg cramps, liver disease, and disability manifested by motion sickness, and his active service, a claim for service connection for these disabilities is not well grounded. Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994). Since he has not met the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that his claims are well grounded, there is no further duty to assist him in the development of those claims. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). Since the claims are not well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate them and they must, accordingly, be dismissed. Grottveit; Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14 (1993). ORDER Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder is denied. The issues of service connection for ulcer and/or indigestion, ingrown toenail on the left toe, disability manifested by headaches, eye disease, disability manifested by leg cramps, liver disease, and disability manifested by motion sickness, are dismissed. JEFF MARTIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 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.