BVA9504336 DOCKET NO. 93-11 911 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left knee injury. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to the eyes. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Georgia Department of Veterans Service WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Deborah W. Singleton, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on an active duty from April 1943 to December 1945. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran's Appeals ("Board") on appeal from an August 1992 rating decision of the Atlanta, Georgia, Regional Office ("RO") of the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") which denied entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left knee injury, residuals of an injury to the eyes, and a heart disorder. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran, by and through his representative, asserts that he suffers from residuals of injuries to the left knee, and right and left eyes, and a heart disorder. He contends that these conditions had their origin in service, and that he has received continuous treatment for the listed conditions since service. 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 claims for residuals of a left knee injury, residuals of an injury to the right and left eyes, and a heart disorder are not well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of a left knee injury is not supported by cognizable evidence showing that the claim is plausible or capable of substantiation. 2. The claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of an injury to the eyes is not support by cognizable evidence showing that the claim is plausible or capable of substantiation. 3. The claim of entitlement to service connection for an enlarged heart is not supported by cognizable evidence showing that the claim is plausible or capable of substantiation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for an injury to the left knee is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). 2. The claim for entitlement to service connection for an injury to the eyes is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). 3. The claim for entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Board has determined that the veteran's claims are not "well grounded" within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). That is, the veteran has failed to meet his initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that his claims are plausible or capable of substantiation. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609, 611 (1992); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). As such, there is no duty to assist the veteran in developing his case, and his claims must be dismissed. Tirpak, 2 Vet.App. at 611 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141, 144 (1992). Factual Background The service medical records reflect no complaints, treatment or findings of an injury to the left knee, an injury to right and left eyes, or a heart disorder. On separation examination in December 1945, the veteran had no musculoskeletal defects. His uncorrected visual acuity was measured at 20/20 in both eyes, and his vision was evaluated as normal. An evaluation of his cardiovascular system yielded normal findings, and his chest x- ray was negative. The physician provided his opinion that the veteran met the physical and mental standards for discharge. In May 1992, the veteran filed an application for compensation or pension seeking service connection for a left knee condition, a right and left eye condition, and a heart condition. He listed treatment for his conditions during service. Also, he reported that he has received treatment for all of the conditions since 1986. Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") medical records, from March 1986 through April 1992, were procured. These records included a July 1986 fluorescein angiography report showing an "old branch retinal vein occlusion with regressed neovascularization," as well as "evidence of retinal vessel leaks and capillary dropout" at 2 degrees, of the left eye. The records indicated that in May 1987, the veteran was diagnosed with "vitreous hemorrhage" of the left eye. Also, a September 1987 discharge summary reflected that the veteran was hospitalized for an evaluation of "probable cerebrovascular accident with left upper extremity and left lower extremity weakness." He reported a 5-day onset prior to admission, and he denied a history of stroke, seizure, or cardiac problems. The diagnoses included a right subcortical infarct with left hemiparesis, and hypertension. In October 1992, the veteran testified at a personal hearing regarding his contention that his left knee, eyes, and heart conditions were incurred in service. He testified that he sustained an injury to his left knee during basic training; and that he sustained an injury to both his eyes when he fell into barbed wire in 1943. He testified that, on each occasion, he was seen in the dispensary where his injuries were bandaged, and that he received no further treatment in service. He also testified that while he was stationed overseas, he was frightened by a storm or earthquake, and was later told by a doctor that he had an enlarged heart. Analysis In order to establish service connection for a claimed disability, the facts, as shown by the evidence, must demonstrate that a particular injury or disease resulting in current disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (1994). In addition, certain chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, may be presumed to have incurred during service if they become manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, 3.309. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of continuity of symptoms after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R § 3.303(b). In this case, the Board observes that the service medical records are completely negative for any complaints, findings or diagnoses of a left knee condition, a disability of the eyes, or heart a disorder. Moreover, the record does not disclose medical evidence that the veteran currently has a left knee disability; the veteran's lay assertion that he now suffers from a left knee condition, without substantiation, is not sufficient evidence. See Grivois v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 136, 140 (1994) (quoting Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494-95 (1992)). The veteran's medical records do disclose current disabilities involving the eyes and heart, but there is no medical evidence linking a heart condition to the veteran's military service, nor is there evidence which indicates a connection between the right and left eye injury the veteran states that he sustained in service and his current eye disability. While the veteran has presented oral testimony in support of his claim, he, as a lay witness, is not competent to medically link any current eye or heart disability to his active duty service. See Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14, 17 (1993)Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91, 93 (1993); Espiritu, 2 Vet.App. at 495. To be well grounded, a claim must be supported by evidence, not merely allegations. Tirpak, supra. In the absence of a disability involving the left knee and the eyes during the veteran's active duty, competent medical evidence linking a current disability to service is required to find these claims plausible. Grottveit, 5 Vet.App. at 93 (1993); Espiritu, supra; Murphy, 1 Vet.App. at 81. Consistently, there is also a complete lack of competent evidence linking any current heart disorder, including a cardiovascular disease, to service, or within the first post-service year. Id. Here, the veteran has failed to produce such evidence. Therefore, the claims must be dismissed as not well grounded. Finally, although the Board has considered and decided this appeal on a ground different from that of the RO, which denied the claims on the merits, the veteran has not been prejudiced. This is because, in assuming that the claims were well grounded, the RO accorded the veteran greater consideration than his claim in fact warranted under the circumstances. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 384, 392-94 (1993). To remand this case to the RO would be pointless and, in light of the law cited above, would not result in a determination favorable to him. VA O.G.C. Prec. Op. 16-92, 57 Fed. Reg. 49-747 (1992). ORDER The veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a left knee injury, residuals of an injury to the eyes, and a heart disorder are dismissed. BRUCE KANNEE 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.