BVA9504307 DOCKET NO. 93-07 691 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manila, Philippines THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for a scar, residual to a gunshot wound of the right parietal region. 2. Entitlement to an increased rating for a scar, residual to a gunshot wound of the right thigh, Muscle Group XIII, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Frank L. Christian, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had recognized active service from October 1942 to May 1945. He was a Prisoner of War (POW) of the Japanese Imperial Government from October 1943 to April 1944. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of August 1992 from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Manila, Philippines. In his substantive appeal, received in March 1993, the veteran claimed, for the first time, entitlement to service connection for pulmonary emphysema and other prisoner of war-related diseases. These claims have not been adjudicated, are not in proper appellate status, and are not inextricably intertwined with those currently on appeal. Accordingly, they are referred to the RO for appropriate development and adjudication. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran has made no specific contentions with respect to the disabilities at issue, but has merely expressed his intention to apply for an increased disability rating. 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 claims for an increased (compensable) rating for a scar, residual to a gunshot wound of the right parietal region, and a scar, residual to a gunshot wound of the right thigh, Muscle Group XIII, are not well grounded. FINDING OF FACT The veteran has not asserted an increase in the severity of the disabilities at issue and has submitted no medical evidence which pertains or relates to those disabilities; nor does he allege that these disabilities are erroneously rated. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claims for an increased (compensable) rating for his scar, residual to a gunshot wound of the right parietal region, and for an increased rating for a scar, residual to a gunshot wound of the right thigh, Muscle Group XIII, are not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The initial step in claims and appeals adjudication is determining whether or not there is a well-grounded claim. According to the interpretation of the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court), the statutory "duty to assist" under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991) does not arise until there is a well-grounded claim. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990). The question of whether or not a claim is well grounded is significant because if a claim is not well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim. Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993). In this regard, the Court has observed that the statutory prerequisite of submitting a "well- grounded" claim "reflects a policy that implausible claims should not consume the limited resources of the VA and force into even greater backlog and delay those claims which--as well grounded-- require adjudication....Attentiveness to this threshold issue is, by law, not only for the Board, but for the initial adjudicators, for it is their duty to avoid adjudicating implausible claims at the expense of delaying well-grounded ones." Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136, 139 (1994). As an initial matter, a veteran claiming entitlement to VA benefits has a burden of submitting supporting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992). In determining whether a claim is well grounded, the supporting evidence is presumed to be true. King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19, 21 (1993). Further evidence which is submitted in support of a claim may be in the form of "evidentiary assertions" which are presumed to be true, except when the evidentiary assertion is inherently incredible or when the fact asserted is beyond the competence of the person making the assertion. Id. In this particular case, the veteran's claims are not well grounded. The current ratings for the disabilities at issue were confirmed and/or established by a rating decision in November 1991. That rating was based on a record which included the report of an examination in September 1991. The current claim for increase was received in August 1992. There is no allegation that the disabilities at issue have increased in severity, and no medical evidence has been submitted which pertains in any way to those disabilities. Furthermore, the veteran does not allege that the current ratings are erroneous. Finally, the nature of the disabilities at issue, gunshot wound residual scars, is such that they would not be expected to be progressive in nature, and there is no indication that they are being treated. The evidence the veteran has submitted pertains to disabilities not at issue herein. As there is no element present which makes these claims of the veteran plausible, we must conclude that they are not well grounded. ORDER The claims for entitlement to an increased (compensable) rating for a scar, residual to a gunshot wound of the right parietal region and an increased rating for a scar, residual to a gunshot wound of the right thigh, Muscle Group XIII, are dismissed. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) GEORGE R. SENYK 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.