BVA9505896 
DOCKET NO.  93-11 497     )       DATE
          )
          )

On appeal from the decision of the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Phoenix,
Arizona

THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of filariasis
(claimed as effects of elephantiasis).

REPRESENTATION

Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

Jeffrey J. Schueler, Associate Counsel

INTRODUCTION

The veteran served on active duty from April 1943 to August 1943.

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran contends that he was developed elephantiasis while in
the United States Navy in World War II.  He maintains that he was
hospitalized from June to August 1943 for elephantiasis at the
San Diego Naval Hospital, and was offered an honorable discharge
from the service for signing a waiver that he would not file for
disability.  He asserts that he has suffered from the effects of
filariasis, claimed as effects of elephantiasis, since service
separation.

DECISION OF THE BOARD

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (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
submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim of entitlement to
service connection for residuals of filariasis (claimed as
effects of elephantiasis).

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record shows neither evidence of filariasis or of
elephantiasis during active service nor evidence of current
residuals of filariasis or elephantiasis.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for
residuals of filariasis (claimed as effects of elephantiasis) is
not well grounded.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

Service connection may be established for a disability resulting
from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line
of duty or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury suffered or
disease contracted in the line of duty.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110
(West 1991).  Regulations also provide that 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).

The threshold question to be addressed is whether the veteran has
presented a well-grounded claim for service connection.  If he
has not presented a well-grounded claim, the appeal must fail and
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is under no duty to
assist him further in the development of his claim.  38 U.S.C.A.
§ 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103(a), 3.159(a) (1994).
See Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1992).  Although a
claim need not be conclusive to be well grounded, it must be
accompanied by supporting evidence that justifies a belief by
a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible.
Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992); Dixon v.
Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 261, 262 (1992).

Although the veteran maintains that he was hospitalized for
elephantiasis in June to August 1943 at the San Diego Naval
Hospital, a review of the service medical records fails to reveal
any complaints, treatment, or findings of filariasis or
elephantiasis during active service.  In August 1943, an Aptitude
Board recommended that he be discharged from service due to
unsuitability.

Post-service clinical evidence prepared between July 1975 and May
1991 at the Phoenix, Prescott, and Tuscon, Arizona, VA Medical
Centers, as well as a December 1990 admission summary at St.
John's Hospital and Medical Center, at Phoenix, Arizona, also
shows no complaints, treatment, or findings regarding residuals
of filariasis or elephantiasis.

While the veteran has related his belief that he has disability
from filariasis or elephantiasis during service, the service
medical records fail to show any evidence of filariasis
or elephantiasis during active service, and clinical evidence
subsequent to active service does not show complaints, findings,
or treatment for such a disorder or any residual disability.
Other than the veteran's claim of having had
elephantiasis/filariasis in service, there is no evidence that he
has ever had such a disorder or that he now has residuals.
Without cognizable evidence submitted to support a claim, the
claim cannot be well-grounded and the Board does not have
jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim.  Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App.
14, 17 (1994).  As such, the matter must be dismissed.

ORDER

The veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for
residuals of filariasis (claimed as effects of elephantiasis) is
dismissed.

          JANE E. SHARP
          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.