BVA9505673 DOCKET NO. 93-13 389 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for residuals of jaw and facial injury and surgery. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Alice A. Booher, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service in the National Guard from October 1940 to June 1945. This appeal is taken from the rating action by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York, in July 1992. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL In substance, the veteran argues that while on active duty, he had several teeth knocked out, surgery was performed on several occasions, and on one occasion, because his jaw was uneven, it had to be rebroken. He has argued that all of his pertinent service medical records must not have been reviewed or they would have substantiated his claim. 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. 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 veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of jaw and facial injury and surgery is not well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Adequate evidence for an equitable disposition of the issue on appeal is of record. 2. During service, ameliorative inservice dental surgery included extraction of some teeth for which the veteran received dentures; following service, the veteran's dentures were replaced by the VA following trauma to the mouth while a policeman. 3. There is no evidence or medical opinion that the veteran had a jaw or facial injury in service or that he has residuals of jaw or facial injury as a result of service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of jaw or facial injury and surgery is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5107, 7105(d)(5) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Board is satisfied that, in pertinent part, the VA's obligation to assist the veteran in the development of the evidence has been met, and that the evidence now in the file is an adequate basis upon which to reach an equitable disposition of the claims herein under consideration. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Service connection may be granted for disability which is the result of disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 1131 (West 1991). For the showing of chronic disease in service there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word "chronic." Continuity of symptomatology is required where the condition noted during service is not, in fact, shown to be chronic or where the diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. When the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1994). 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) (1994). Service connection may also be granted for disability which is the result of service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (1994). The usual effects of medical and surgical treatment in service, having the effect of ameliorating disease or other conditions incurred before enlistment, including postoperative scars and absent or poorly functioning parts or organs, will not be considered service-connected unless the disease or injury is otherwise aggravated by service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(b)(1) (1994). In Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14 (1993), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) held that A veteran claiming entitlement to VA benefits 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, and see Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 609, 610-11 (l992). If a claim is not well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate that claim. See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993). The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5). In his recent claim, the veteran argues that he injured his jaw and face in service, and that removal of teeth in service and other surgical procedures were accomplished to reconstruct as a result of those injuries, as well as correct jaw difficulties. The RO endeavored without success to obtain additional service records from the National Personnel Records Center. The Board is satisfied that all available service medical records are in the file. These records have been reviewed, and the Board finds that the veteran's allegations in this regard are not borne out by the objective evidence. On the veteran's enlistment examination in October 1940, his dental chart showed many already missing teeth (identified by "x" marks), as well as a few restorable teeth (identified by circles around them). Beginning in August 1941, and continuing for about a month, he was placed in the care of the Dental Service for treatment of a radicular cyst involving L1 and L2. The teeth were extracted. Later, R2 and R4 required removal. Once the focal infection was eliminated, it was determined that due to malocclusion and position of the remaining teeth, extraction of all teeth was necessary in order to allow for satisfactory replacement. He was provided with full upper and lower dentures. The separation physical examination report reflected the removal of all teeth with upper and lower dentures as replacements. There was no mention of residuals of a jaw or facial injury on the examination report. On no occasion in service was there any complaints or other indication that the dental or alleged facial or jaw problems were a result of trauma sustained in service, nor did the surgery cause any untoward residual problems other than to ameliorate his already generally poor dental condition. In a rating action in April 1948, the RO identified various teeth (for outpatient treatment purposes only) as being incurred in or aggravated by service. On a private treatment record in 1948, there was no reference to inservice facial or jaw trauma. When seen by the VA in 1948, the veteran reported that as a police officer, he had become in a fight, and had his denture broken and lost. Full upper and lower dentures were provided by the VA. VA evaluative report from 1960 shows no residuals of inservice jaw or facial injury. No evidence has been submitted by the veteran showing that either he sustained an injury to the jaw or face during service, nor has he presented evidence that he currently has residuals of an inservice injury to jaw or face. In Radibeau v. Brown, 2 Vet.App. 141 (1992), the Court held that in the absence of evidence of a current disability which could be attributed to service, the veteran had not submitted evidence "probative of the issue at hand." For these reasons, the veteran's claim is not well grounded. ORDER The veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of jaw and facial injury and surgery is not well grounded; the case is dismissed. RENÉE M. PELLETIER Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 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.