Citation Nr: 0002763 Decision Date: 02/03/00 Archive Date: 02/10/00 DOCKET NO. 93-24 665 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder claimed as a residual of venereal disease. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. M. Ivey, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active duty from July 1949 to September 1952. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 1992 rating decision of the Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia. Additional evidence was associated with the claims file. However, this additional evidence does not address a psychiatric disorder. Therefore, the additional evidence is not material. The veteran was informed of how to file a new claim with the regional office. FINDING OF FACT Competent evidence of a nexus between a psychiatric disorder claimed as a residual of venereal disease and service is not of record. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder claimed as a residual of venereal disease is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The veteran has appealed the denial of service connection for a psychiatric disorder. Based on the evidence of record, 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. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after service when all the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1999). In making a claim for service connection, the appellant has the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). A well-grounded claim is a plausible claim, one which is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990). A well-grounded claim for service connection generally requires medical evidence of a current disability; evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service as provided by either lay or medical evidence, as the situation dictates; and, a nexus, or link, between the inservice disease or injury and the current disability as provided by competent medical evidence. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 137 (1997); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995) aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed.Cir. 1996) (table); see also 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1996); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992). Alternatively, the nexus between service and the current disability can be satisfied by evidence of continuity of symptomatology and medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the symptomatology. See Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495 (1997). Establishing direct service connection for a disability that was not clearly present in service requires the existence of a current disability and a relationship or connection between that disability and a disease contracted or an injury sustained during service. Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992). Moreover, establishing a well-grounded claim for service connection for a particular disability requires more than an allegation that the particular disability had its onset in service. It requires evidence relevant to the requirements for service connection cited above and of sufficient weight to make the claim plausible and capable of substantiation. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609 (1992); see also Murphy, 1 Vet. App. at 81. The kind of evidence needed to make a claim well grounded depends upon the types of issues presented by the claim. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 92-93 (1993). For some factual issues, competent lay evidence may be sufficient. However, where the claim involves issues of medical fact, such as medical causation or medical diagnoses, competent medical evidence is required. Grottveit, 5 Vet. App. at 93. The appellant has not claimed that an acquired psychiatric disorder arose under a combat situation. Thus, entitlement to application of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) is not warranted. Information from the hospital admissions cards created by the Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army do not show a diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder. The documents reflect notations of chancroid and primary syphilis. The Social Security Administration (SSA) psychological evaluation, dated April 1993, provided a diagnosis of a severe generalized anxiety disorder. The examiner indicated that while one has to be aware of the possible problems associated with the appellant's reported syphilis infection it does appear that, in addition to numerous apparently documented physiological problems, he may also have an anxiety disorder with a classic stocking and glove anthesia. At the August 1999 Board hearing the appellant testified that his current symptoms were due to syphilis in service; that was mistreated. During the hearing the veteran was informed of his duty to submit evidence of a well grounded claim and the possibility of additional evidence regarding a psychiatric disorder was explored. The claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not well grounded. The SSA examiner has not provided a nexus between the appellant's acquired psychiatric disorder and service. No etiology was found for the appellant's acquired psychiatric disorder. Although the examiner noted that one had to be aware of the possible problems associated with syphilis, the examiner did not attribute a psychiatric disorder to service. In fact, the examiner noted that "in addition" the veteran may have an anxiety disorder. This tends to establish that the examiner did not attribute a psychiatric disorder to service, including the infection. We also note that the examiner did not attribute the psychiatric diagnoses of generalized anxiety disorder, rule out conversion disorder and rule out somatoform disorder to syphilis or service. The appellant has not brought forth evidence of a positive relationship between the acquired psychiatric disorder and service nor has he brought forth evidence of a positive relationship between a venereal disease and an acquired psychiatric disorder. Thus, the appellant has failed to submit competent medical evidence of a nexus between the current acquired psychiatric disorder and a disease or injury in service and therefore, the claim is not well grounded. See Caluza, supra. Although the appellant has stated that he believes that his problem is related to syphilis, he is a lay person and his opinion is not competent. See Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 470; Espiritu, 2 Vet. App. at 494. The appellant's own unsupported opinion does not give rise to a well-grounded claim. The Board has reviewed all the evidence of record. Although the appellant stated that his acquired psychiatric disorder was due to service there is no competent evidence that a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in service caused the appellant's acquired psychiatric disorder. Accordingly, the appellant's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied, as he has not submitted a well-grounded claim. At this time, there is no competent evidence that the appellant's acquired psychiatric disorder is attributable to service. Furthermore, there is no competent evidence that the appellant's acquired psychiatric disorder was manifest during service. Based on the evidence of record the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not well grounded. Although VA does not have a statutory duty to assist a claimant in developing facts pertinent to the claim when it is determined to be not well grounded, it may be obligated under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 1991) to advise a claimant of evidence needed to complete his application. This obligation depends on the particular facts of the case and the extent to which the Secretary has advised the claimant of the evidence necessary to be submitted with a VA benefits claim. Robinette, supra. Here, VA fulfilled its obligation under section 5103(a) by issuing a statement of the case in November 1997. In addition, at the August 1999 Board hearing the Board Member reminded the appellant that he had to submit a well-grounded claim. The Board Member distinguished the neurosyphilis from the psychiatric disorder. In this respect, the Board is satisfied that the obligation imposed by section 5103(a) has been satisfied at both the RO level and the appellate level. See Franzen v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 235 (1996) (VA's obligation under § 5103(a) to assist claimant in filing his claim pertains to relevant evidence which may exist or could be obtained). ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder claimed as a residual of venereal disease is denied. H. N. SCHWARTZ Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals