Citation Nr: 0006535 Decision Date: 03/10/00 Archive Date: 03/17/00 DOCKET NO. 94-04 322 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Louis, Missouri THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. S. Nelson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active military service from January 1978 to February 1978. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) on appeal from an October 1993 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Louis, Missouri. This appeal was previously before the Board in December 1997. The appellant requested a hearing before a Member of the Board of Veterans' Appeals in her January 1994 substantive appeal. In a letter dated March 27, 1997, the RO informed the appellant that her hearing would be held on April 17, 1997, at the St. Louis RO. However, a note in the file indicates that the appellant did not appear for her scheduled hearing. FINDING OF FACT There is no competent medical evidence which shows that an acquired psychiatric disorder was present during service or within one year thereafter, or that any currently diagnosed psychiatric disorder has a nexus or relationship to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant's claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION As noted, this appeal was previously before the Board in December 1997. The Board remanded the case in an effort to obtain additional VA and private treatment records. Additional treatment records were obtained from the VAMC in Columbia, Missouri. In January 1998 and May 1998 the RO sent letters to the appellant to obtain her authorization in an effort to procure private treatment records. However, the appellant did not respond to the RO's requests for assistance. Additionally, the Board also notes that the claims file contains a September 1993 letter from Central Missouri State University indicating that no records of the appellant's treatment were found. The Board observes that as the appellant's claim is not well grounded, the VA has no further duty to assist her in developing the record to support her claim. See Epps, 126 F. 3d at 1467-68; see also Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (1999). The appellant contends that she suffers from an acquired psychiatric disorder as a result of her military service. The law provides that a veteran is entitled to service connection for disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated while in service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1999). Certain chronic disabilities, such as psychoses, are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1999). That an injury occurred in service alone is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Service connection may also 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. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). However, the Board must first determine whether the appellant has submitted a well-grounded claim as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). To establish that a claim for service connection is well grounded, there must be a medical diagnosis of a current disability; medical evidence, or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Epps v. Gober, 126 F.3d 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A claim may also be well grounded based on 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 (1997). If the evidence presented by the appellant fails to meet this threshold level of sufficiency, no further legal analysis need be made as to the merits of the claim. See Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 14, 17 (1993). Clinical evaluation of the appellant's psychiatric system was reported as normal on her January 1978 service entrance examination. The appellant's service medical records are negative for any diagnosis or treatment for any psychiatric related problem. The appellant complained of depression, excessive worry, and nervous trouble on a February 1978 report of medical history. The file does not contain a service separation examination. An April 1987 and September 1987 discharge summary from the Middle Missouri Health Center reflects that the appellant was admitted for psychiatric care. She was diagnosed with a Borderline Personality Disorder. She was not diagnosed with any Axis I psychiatric disability. VA treatment records dated from July 1990 to January 1998 reflect ongoing treatment for psychiatric and physiological disorders. The records reflect that the appellant was diagnosed with psychiatric disability including schizoaffective disorder. A review of the record reveals that there is no medical evidence showing that the appellant suffered from an acquired psychiatric disorder during service, or that any of the appellant current psychiatric disability is related to service. The Board acknowledges the appellant's contentions and understands her sincere belief that her current psychiatric problems are related to her military service. However, the etiology or pathology of a disability or disease involves a medical question that the appellant is not qualified to answer. "Where the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence is required to fulfill the well- grounded claim requirement of section 5107(a); where the determinative issue does not require medical expertise, lay testimony may suffice by itself." Godfrey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 398, 405 (1995). In the present case, there is no competent evidence in the form of medical evidence linking a current psychiatric disorder to service. Further, there is no medical opinion relating her current psychiatric disorder to any continuity of symptomatology that she may be claiming, and, under such circumstances, the claim is not well grounded. Savage, supra. By this decision, the Board is informing the appellant that competent medical evidence of causation is required to render her claim well grounded. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 1991); Robinette v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 69 (1995). The Board is aware of no circumstances in this matter which would put VA on notice that relevant evidence may exist or could be obtained, which, if true, would make the claim for service connection "plausible." See generally McKnight v. Gober, 131 F.3d 1483 (Fed. Cir. 1997). ORDER Evidence of a well-grounded claim not having been submitted, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. RAYMOND F. FERNER Acting Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals