BVA9508064 DOCKET NO. 93-14 015 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a chronic stomach disorder, hypertension, and a kidney condition. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. K. Mulroy, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from January 1954 to December 1955. He was denied service connection for an organic stomach disorder, hypertension, and chronic renal insufficiency in a March 1992 rating decision from the Waco, Texas, Regional Office (hereinafter RO). The veteran has appealed to the Board of Veterans Appeals (hereinafter the Board), and is represented by the American Legion. It is noted that during the pendency of this appeal, the veteran has requested an increased evaluation for his service connected left knee disability. The Board refers this issue to the RO for appropriate development. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he was seen in sick call during service for a chronic stomach disorder, hypertension, and a kidney condition, and that the corresponding records are missing from the service medical records. DECISION OF THE BOARD In accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), following review and consideration of all evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the veteran's claims for service connection for a chronic stomach disorder, hypertension, and a kidney condition are not well-grounded, and are therefore dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The claims for service connection for a chronic stomach disorder, hypertension, and a kidney condition are not supported by cognizable evidence showing that the claims are plausible or capable of being substantiated. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant has not submitted well-grounded claims for entitlement to service connection for a chronic stomach disorder, hypertension, and a kidney condition. 38 U.S.C.A. §1110, 1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Board notes that the threshold question to be answered is whether the veteran has presented well-grounded claims within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. That is, the veteran must have presented claims that are plausible. If not, the appeal must fail. The Board finds that the claims for service connection for a chronic stomach disorder, hypertension, and a kidney condition are not well-grounded. Therefore, the duty to assist the veteran with the development of his appeal as mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107, is not triggered. Service connection may be established for disability resulting from injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131. 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). As previously noted, the veteran served from January 1954 to December 1955. In service medical records, the veteran was noted during his induction examination to have had his albumin rechecked, and findings were negative. A blood pressure reading of 140/90 was elicited. It was noted in a record dated in March 1955, that the veteran was treated for gonococcal urethritis. On his separation examination dated in December 1955, a chest x-ray was interpreted as negative, his blood pressure was read as 120/68, and there were no findings of pathology regarding his stomach or digestive system. Although his albumin level was noted as abnormal, he refused additional tests and medical evaluation. In a VA examination dated in September 1959, he complained of a backache due to "kidney trouble". Upon examination, the physician noted a normal cardiovascular system with blood pressure read as 130/74. After a special genito-urinary examination, the physician stated that he found no residuals of gonococcal urethritis. The albumin level was noted as 1+. It was specifically indicated that no "urinary disability" was found, and a kidney disorder was not noted. His digestive system was noted to be normal. In a VA hospital record developed in 1962, a blood pressure reading of 110/70 was elicited. In VA outpatient and hospitalization records dated July 1977, it was noted that the veteran was treated for a rectal ulcer. History was furnished to the effect that he had not experienced previous problems with food intolerance or hematemesis. In VA records dated in the early 1980's, it was noted that the veteran complained of fecal incontinence and a build-up of gas in his stomach, and was treated for a perirectal abscess. VA records dated in the late 1980's indicated additional treatment for a perirectal abscess. It was also noted that the veteran was diagnosed as having hypertension. In a VA hospitalization record dated in December 1991, it was noted that the veteran was diagnosed with mild congestive heart failure probably secondary to medication noncompliance, and was admitted for blood pressure control and treatment of the congestive heart failure. It was noted that he had a history of medication noncompliance, chronic renal insufficiency, and mild aortic insufficiency. Upon review of all the evidence, the Board finds that the veteran has not met the threshold requirement of submitting a well- grounded claim regarding his claims for service connection for a chronic stomach disorder, hypertension, and a kidney condition. While it is not clear that the veteran currently experiences an adequately identified chronic disability of the stomach, the problems with his digestive tract which have been shown at a point many years following service have not been medically related to his period of service. By the same reasoning, a medically plausible basis for linking current problems the veteran may be experiencing with hypertension and a kidney disorder to his period of service has not been advanced by any probative evidentiary item currently on file. The veteran's own assertions in this regard do not serve to render his claim well-grounded, as he lacks the medical credentials to offer a probative opinion concerning matters related to causation or diagnosis. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2. Vet.App. 492 (1992). The veteran has stated that he believes his service medical records which would detail treatment for these conditions are missing. The Board notes that the RO was informed by the Army in January 1956 that no additional medical records were available. The Board also points out that there was no indication after service of hypertension until 1988. Although an abnormal level of albumin was noted upon the veteran's separation from service, there were no findings of a chronic kidney disease at that time. Rather, only in recent records dated in 1991, many years after service, was chronic renal insufficiency noted. There is no current diagnosis of a chronic stomach disorder. Although the veteran's statements regarding his symptomatology are well meaning and informative, the Board does not find his contentions constitute well-grounded claims, considering the absence of any supportive, corroborating documentary evidence of these conditions in service, of a current stomach disorder, or of evidence that the veteran's kidney disorder or hypertension are otherwise causally related to his period of service. The Board concludes that the veteran's claims are not well-grounded and that the claims of entitlement to service connection for a chronic stomach disorder, hypertension, and a kidney condition are dismissed. ORDER Because the claims are not well-grounded, the claims of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a chronic stomach disorder, hypertension, and a kidney condition are dismissed. JEFFREY MARTIN 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.