BVA9502116 DOCKET NO. 93-10 661 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Seattle, Washington THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Lori R. Bucci, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from March 1958 to June 1958. This appeal arises from a rating decision in June 1992 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Seattle, Washington. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he suffers from schizophrenia which, he asserts, had its origin in 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 claim for service connection for schizophrenia is not well-grounded. FINDING OF FACT The claim for service connection for schizophrenia is not supported by cognizable evidence showing that the claim is plausible or capable of substantiation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for schizophrenia is not well- grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Factual Background Service medical records were obtained by the RO in June 1958, and there is no reason to believe that the RO did not obtain all available service medical records at that time. In June 1992, the RO noted that the veteran had submitted VA Form 21-4142 claiming that he had been treated at Fort Carson, Colorado for paranoid schizophrenia in 1958. In response, the RO made a request in July 1992 to the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) for any additional treatment records. In August 1992, NPRC reported that clinical records could not be reconstructed; no additional medical evidence was on file; and that the service medical records were lost in the 1973 fire at NPRC. However, as noted above, it appears that the RO did secure all available service medical records in June 1958, prior to the 1973 fire. Therefore, the Board finds that the service medical records are not missing or destroyed. The service medical records, including a May 1958 separation examination, are negative for any psychological disorders, including schizophrenia. In May 1958, the veteran was hospitalized for evaluation of occipital headaches. Physical examination revealed a skull defect in the occipital region, a right sided strabismus, a mild right sided intention tremor and an equilibratory deficit. The diagnosis was encephalopathy due to trauma following resection of a congenital lesion in infancy, manifested by upper motor neuron disease, primarily on the right; not incurred in the line of duty; existing prior to service. A psychiatric profile score of one was listed under PULHES. A Medical Board convened and determined that the veteran was medically unfit for service and he was discharged because of encephalopathy, existing prior to service. In February 1977, the veteran fell from a tree and, as a result, became a L1 incomplete paraplegic. In March 1977, the veteran was admitted to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Washington because he was unable to voluntarily void. Soon after admission, he became quite psychotic. It was noted that the veteran heard voices that he knew were not there, and felt the patients were going to kill him and that the staff was trying to poison him. A psychiatric consult was obtained, and he was placed on Haldol and Kemadrin. On physical examination, it was noted that the veteran had a history of paranoid schizophrenia. The veteran expressed feelings of a lack of worth and he appeared depressed about his injury. In November 1977, the veteran was readmitted to Harborview Medical Center for a right ischial decubitus. The medical report noted his history of paranoid schizophrenia and that this was being treated with Haldol, with control of hallucinations. His medications were adjusted during this hospitalization. On physical examination, the veteran was alert, oriented, and smiled inappropriately. A pertinent final diagnosis was not entered at discharge. In June 1982, the veteran was again admitted to Harborview Medical Center for health problems related to his paraplegia. With reference to paranoid schizophrenia, the examiner indicated that the veteran gave no evidence of ongoing psychotic behavior and that it essentially had been an inactive problem. In an April 1991 statement, Phillips E. Roth, M.D., a private physician, reported that he had treated the veteran since 1982 for paranoid schizophrenia, depression, chronic pain, drug dependent behavior and other unrelated health problems. Dr. Roth further stated that the veteran had a long history of projecting his troubles onto his body and on to other people. The doctor noted that he also had treated the veteran's father and two sisters for paranoid schizophrenia. At a VA inpatient clinic in August 1987, the veteran was primarily seen for the evaluation and management of his chronic pain. The medical report indicates that the veteran did report paranoid voices that talked to him all day. The voices were not unpleasant or persecutory, and he would not share what they said. The veteran denied suicidal or homicidal ideation. He had good sleep patterns, but his appetite and concentration were slightly decreased. The veteran's primary psychiatrist had reported a significant family history of paranoid schizophrenia. The veteran gave a history that he had been discharged from service in 1958 for paranoia. During his hospital course the veteran became quite paranoid at times; thinking his wife was going to put him in a nursing home. It was reported on several occasions that he reportedly had attacked his wife with a knife. The veteran was evaluated by psychiatry and his medical regimen was changed to taper Ritalin and Dalmane. He expressed no suicidal or homicidal behavior at any time during this hospitalization or at discharge. The psychiatry service, however, felt that he was always at risk for attacking his wife in light of his prior history. He was discharged on Imipramine, Trilafon, and Cogentin. A follow-up with his primary psychiatrist, Doctor Roth, was arranged. The final diagnoses included schizophrenia. In 1988, the veteran was admitted to St. Elizabeth Medical Center in Yakima, Washington for various health problems related to his paraplegia and not for any psychological disorder. The records pertaining to this care do, however, note his history of schizophrenia and his medications therefor. Analysis The Board has determined that the veteran's claim is 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 claim is plausible or capable of substantiation. As such, there is no duty to assist the veteran in developing his case, and his claim must be dismissed. Service connection for schizophrenia may be granted if the disorder was incurred or aggravated during the veteran's active duty service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 1991). Additionally, service connection for schizophrenia may be granted if that disorder was compensably disabling within one year of the veteran's separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1994). In this case, the service medical records are negative for any complaints or findings for any psychological disorder including schizophrenia. Moreover, no competent evidence has been presented demonstrating that the veteran had compensably disabling schizophrenia within one year of his separation from active duty. Most importantly, no competent individual or cognizable evidence has linked any current psychological disorder, to include schizophrenia, to the veteran's active duty service. The veteran as a layman does not have the expertise to offer an opinion on medical causation. Hence, his statements as to medical causation are not competent evidence. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). To be well grounded, a claim must be supported be evidence, not just allegations. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). Hence, in the absence of a showing of schizophrenia during the veteran's active duty service, or compensably disabling schizophrenia within one year of his separation from active duty, competent medical evidence linking a current disability to service is necessary to find that this claim is plausible. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). The veteran has submitted no such evidence, and hence, his claim is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). The United States Court of Veterans Appeals has held that, if a claim is not well grounded, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim. Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14 (1993). Accordingly, this claim is dismissed. Consistent with the duty set forth in 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) to notify the claimant of what evidence is necessary to make this claim well grounded, the appellant should understand that this claim would be well grounded if evidence from a competent medical professional or source (e.g., physician, psychiatrist, recognized medical text, etc.) provided an opinion that the veteran incurred or aggravated schizophrenia while on active duty which is directly related to any current schizophrenia. Although the Board considered and denied this appeal on a ground different from that of the RO, which denied the claim on the merits, the appellant has not been prejudiced by the decision. This is because in assuming that the claim was well grounded, the RO accorded the claimant 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 for consideration of the issue of whether the appellant's claim is well grounded 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 claim for service connection for schizophrenia is dismissed. DEREK R. BROWN 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. An individual’s physical profile is divided into six categories (PULHES). The psychiatric. An individual having a numerical designation of "1" under a design to be medically fit from that category’s perspective. See generally, Odiorne v. (1992).