BVA9505721 DOCKET NO. 93-08 747 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson, Mississippi THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a fungal infection of the feet. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. M. Barnard, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from May 1966 to July 1968. This appeal arises from a January 1992 rating decision of the Jackson, Mississippi, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to service connection for a fungal infection of the feet. This decision was confirmed and continued by a rating action issued in November 1992. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends, in essence, that he first suffered from a fungal infection of the feet while he was on active duty. He stated that this consisted of itching that would cause blisters. He also asserted that he went to the VA right after discharge to complain of this condition, but that no treatment was provided. He said that this condition has persisted to the present and that, therefore, service connection 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 the appellant 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 The veteran is not shown by competent medical evidence to suffer from a chronic fungal infection of the feet that can be linked to his period of service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant has not submitted evidence of a well grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The threshold question to be answered in this case is whether the appellant has presented evidence of a well grounded claim; that is, one which is plausible. If he has not presented a well grounded claim, his appeal must fail and there is no duty to assist him further in the development of his claim because such additional development would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). As will be explained below, it is found that his claim is not well grounded. A review of the service medical records indicated that the veteran's feet were normal upon induction into active service in October 1965. In January 1967, the veteran presented to sick call with a rash on his right thigh. This was apparently caused by contact with lighter fluid, and contact dermatitis was diagnosed. The separation examination performed in July 1968, noted that his feet were normal. There was no mention made of any fungal infection of the feet in the service medical records. The veteran submitted a claim for service connection in August 1968. He referred only to his back; a fungal infection of the feet was not noted. The VA examination conducted in October 1968 noted that his feet were normal. The first reference to a skin condition is noted in a VA treatment record developed during 1981. This noted the existence of a rash on the veteran's back. He was hospitalized for an unrelated condition between June and July 1981. This record indicated that he had been seen for a maxillopapular pruritic skin rash on his trunk and extremities in January 1981. In August 1981, he was seen on an outpatient basis and complained of pruritic vesicular eruptions on his chest and back. These had been present for the prior six months. Also present were global pruritus and tinea cruris of the groin area, bilaterally. A VA treatment record from October 1982 noted his complaints of a rash on his back and head, which eventually spread to his whole body. Tinea cruris had been diagnosed two years ago. Lesions were hyperpigmented, with some central hypopigmentation and were scattered over the back, chest, legs, arms and buttocks. There were no vesicles or crusting noted. The diagnosis was recurring acne, not currently active. A VA examination was performed in December 1982. The examiner noted that the service medical records showed that the veteran had a rash in 1967, which was described as a bullous erythematous rash. The veteran stated that he had recurrences since. His attacks reportedly consisted of itching and eruptions. There were no active lesions on the examination. There was scattered hyperpigmention, which had a flat surface. These covered his legs, arms, back and the dorsum of his feet. The diagnosis was pruritic vesicular eruptions of the skin, chronic, recurrent with residual hyperpigmentation in the healed areas. A VA hospitalization report from August to September 1984 made no reference to the veteran's feet. A September 1989 VA outpatient treatment record noted a diagnosis of tinea pedis. The law pertaining to direct service connection clearly requires that there must exist a disability that resulted from disease or injury incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991). In the instant case, the evidence of record does not establish that the veteran suffers from any claimed disability which can be service-connected under the above-noted law. The service medical records do not reveal that the veteran suffered from any fungal infection of the feet during his period of service. The only skin problem in service was a case of contact dermatitis following exposure to lighter fluid on the right thigh. The first notation of any skin condition was not made until 1981. Involvement of his feet was not noted until the VA examination of December 1982. Therefore, there is no evidence that any skin condition involving the feet began in service. While the veteran has asserted that he was treated by VA immediately following service for the skin condition, this has not been confirmed by the objective evidence of record. A search was conducted by the RO at the West Side VA hospital in October 1992, and the response indicated that there were no records pertaining to the veteran developed between 1968 and 1969. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has stated that, in order for a claim for service connection to be well grounded, there must be competent medical evidence of the existence or diagnosis of a current disorder that can be linked to the period of service. Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136 (1994); Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993); and Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141 (1992). As noted above, there is no competent medical evidence that any current skin condition involving the feet, can be linked to the veteran's period of service. Therefore, as the appellant's claim for service connection for this disorder is not well grounded, it must be dismissed. To do otherwise and handle the case on the merits would be inappropriate because it would require the appellant in the future to overcome the inertia of earlier, adversely adjudicated claim. See Grottveit, at 93. ORDER The appeal of the claim of service connection for a fungal infection of the feet is dismissed and so much of the rating action of January 1992 as denied this claim on the merits is vacated. KENNETH R. ANDREWS, JR. 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.