BVA9501373 DOCKET NO. 93-07 596 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson, Mississippi THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Mississippi Veterans Affairs Board INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1977 to March 1980. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals on appeal from a June 1992 rating decision of the Jackson, Mississippi, Regional office. Although the statement of the case addressed the feet and legs, the veterans substantive appeal was limited to the left ankle. Accordingly, the issues on appeal are those stated on the title page. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL It is contended that the appellant thinks her hip, ankle and eye problems are due to service She argues that she was told to have her eyes checked after service, and that if something was not wrong she would not have been so instructed. 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(s). 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 claim for service connection for left ankle, right hip and eye disorders are not well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Satisfactory evidence linking a current eye condition with service has not been presented. 2. Satisfactory evidence linking a current right hip condition with service has not been presented. 3. Satisfactory evidence linking a current left ankle condition with service has not been presented. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The claim for service connection for an eye disability is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). 2. The claim for service connection for a right hip disability is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). 3. The claim for service connection for a left ankle disability is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The threshold question to be answered is whether the appellant has presented evidence of a well-grounded claim for service connection for eye, right hip and left ankle disabilities. If she has not presented a well-grounded claim, the appeal must fail. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). As we explain below, we find that the claim is not well grounded. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 1991). Regulations 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) (1993). The claimant has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief that the claim is well grounded. The VA benefits system requires more than just an allegation; a claimant must submit supporting evidence. Furthermore, the evidence must justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is plausible. The quality and quantity of the evidence required to meet this statutory burden of necessity will depend upon the issue presented by the claim. Where the issue is factual in nature, e.g., whether an incident or injury occurred in service, competent lay testimony, including a veteran's solitary testimony, may constitute sufficient evidence to establish a well-grounded claim. However, where the determinative issue involves medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible or possible is required. A claimant would not meet this burden merely by presenting lay testimony because lay persons are not competent to offer medical opinions. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). During service the appellant was seen for eye complaints and pathology (blepharitis, uveitis and glaucoma) was suspected. In addition, there was swelling of the left ankle and complaint of right hip injury. However, chronic pathology was not identified during service and continuity of symptomatology may be legitimately questioned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Since service, the appellant has filed a claim for service connection. However, the appellant has not produced evidence of continuity of symptomatology since service and has not claimed that such evidence exists. In addition, the appellant has not produced any probative evidence that tends to link the current conditions to her period of service. Specifically, the recent VA examination disclosed no pathology that was attributable to the inservice symptoms. In regard to the recent finding of conjunctivitis, such condition resolved and was of new onset rather that attributable to service. In regard to the finding refractive error with presbyopia, such conditions are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of legislation providing compensation benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In fact, the examiner noted that the findings were consistent with the veteran's age rather than an acquired pathology. The Board does not doubt that the appellant was informed to have her eyes examined after separation form service. It is most likely that advice was given as a precautionary measure. Regardless, the eye pathology identified during service has not been identified since separation from service. At this time there is an absence of competent evidence linking the claimed right hip, left ankle or eye conditions to the appellant's remote period of active service. Accordingly, there is no doubt to be resolved and the claim for service connection is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. If the veteran is able to produce evidence of the claimed disabilities in proximity to service or attributing the claimed conditions to service, she should petition to file a new claim. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. H. N. SCHWARTZ 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.