Citation Nr: 0004070 Decision Date: 02/16/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 95-23 753 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Detroit, Michigan THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple Heart WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Wm. Kenan Torrans, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to July 1971. This matter arises from a May 1995 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan, which denied the benefit sought. The veteran filed a timely appeal, and the case was referred to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). In August 1997 and in December 1998, the Board remanded the case back to the RO for additional development. The requested development having been completed, the case has been returned to the Board for resolution. FINDING OF FACT There is no competent medical evidence of a nexus or link between any currently diagnosed hypertension and the veteran's active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The law provides that service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury that was incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1999). If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then continuity of symptomatology after service is generally required for service connection. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1999). The threshold question which must be answered is whether the veteran has presented a well-grounded claim for service connection. The veteran has the "burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded." See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69, 73 (1995). A well-grounded claim is a plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Such a claim need not be conclusive, but only possible to satisfy the initial burden of § [5107]." Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1995). To establish that a claim for service connection is well grounded, the claimant must satisfy three elements. First, there must be evidence of an incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease in service. Second, there must be competent (i.e. medical) evidence of a current disability. Third, there must be evidence of a nexus or link between the in-service injury or disease and the current disability, as shown through the medical evidence. See Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Lay or medical evidence, as appropriate, may be used to substantiate service incurrence. See Caluza v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 489, 507 (1995); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Alternatively, a claim may be well grounded based on the application of the rule for chronicity and continuity of symptomatology, set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). See Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495-97 (1997). The veteran contends that he incurred hypertension during his active service. His available service medical records are completely negative for any indication or complaints of hypertension. The Board notes that the only service medical records which are available consist of reports of the veteran's service induction and service separation physical examinations. Both of these examinations show the veteran's blood pressure to be within normal ranges. The report of the service induction physical examination shows the veteran's blood pressure to have been 90/60, and the report of his service separation examination shows his blood pressure to have been 120/80. A review of the record also indicates that shortly after service, the veteran was scheduled to undergo a VA rating examination, in November 1971, in conjunction with an earlier claim. However, it appears that the veteran never received notice of the pending examination, and that it was never conducted. Post service medical treatment records dating from January 1995 through October 1999 include a report of a May 1995 VA rating examination, which shows the veteran's blood pressure to have been 154/55 at that time. The examiner concluded with a relevant diagnosis of borderline systolic hypertension. The earliest available VA treatment record, dated in January 1995, shows the veteran's blood pressure to have been 188/88 at that time, but did not address or diagnose hypertension. Further, in August and September 1998, the veteran was admitted to a VA hospital for treatment following a myocardial infarction. However, the report of his inpatient treatment fails to include any medical opinion suggesting a nexus or link between any heart-related problem and the veteran's active service. The Board recognizes that the veteran's service medical records appear to be incomplete. In this regard, the Board notes that attempts to secure additional service medical records from the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri, only resulted in the production of the report of the veteran's service entrance examination. However, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that "the VA has no duty to seek to obtain that which does not exist." See Counts v. Black, 6 Vet. App. 473, 477 (1994); Porter v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 233, 237 (1993). Accordingly, the Board finds that the VA has fulfilled its duty to assist the veteran in reconstructing his missing records, by attempting to obtain records from alternate sources, and providing him with a VA rating examination and the opportunity to present testimony at a personal hearing, and by obtaining post-service medical treatment records. The Board has evaluated the above-discussed evidence, and concludes that the veteran has not submitted evidence of a well-grounded claim for service connection for hypertension. The Board acknowledges that the veteran has recently undergone treatment for a myocardial infarction in September 1998, and that he was diagnosed with borderline systolic hypertension in May 1995. However, his service medical records, including the report of his service separation examination show that he had normal blood pressure at that time, and do not otherwise indicate any complaints or treatment for hypertension in service. In short, the veteran has failed to produce any evidence of a nexus or link that any diagnosed cardiovascular disease, to include hypertension, are related to his active service. There is no indication of a continuity of symptomatology during the 24- year period between the veteran's separation from service in 1971 and the first recorded diagnosis of hypertension in 1995. See Savage, supra. In addition, lay statements and testimony by the veteran that he currently suffers from hypertension that was incurred in service do not constitute medical evidence. As a lay person, lacking in medical training and expertise, the veteran is not competent to address an issue requiring an expert medical opinion, to include medical diagnoses or opinions as to medical etiology. See Moray v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 211, 214 (1995); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-95 (1992). What is missing in this case is a medical opinion, supported by medical evidence and a plausible rationale, that the veteran's currently diagnosed heart-related problems, to include hypertension, were incurred in service. Absent such an opinion, his claim is not well grounded, and must be denied on that basis. For the above reasons, it is the decision of the Board that the veteran has failed to meet his initial burden of submitting a well-grounded claim for service connection for hypertension. The Board has not been made aware of any additional evidence which is available which could serve to well ground the veteran's claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103 (West 1991); McKnight v. Gober, 131 F.3d 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Epps, supra; Grivois v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 136, 140 (1994). The Board also views its discussion as sufficient to inform the veteran of the evidence necessary to complete a well-grounded claim for service connection for hypertension. ORDER Evidence of a well-grounded claim not having been submitted, service connection for hypertension is denied. R. F. WILLIAMS Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals