BVA9503089 DOCKET NO. 93-10 059 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUE Entitlement for service connection for residuals of a head injury. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mark D. Chestnutt, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from April 1943 to March 1946. This appeal stems from an August 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia which denied service connection for a head injury. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he has residuals of an inservice head injury. He maintains that he was injured working on a hatch cover in 1943. 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 appellant has not met the initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that his claim is well grounded. FINDING OF FACT There is not a reasonable probability of a valid claim concerning whether the veteran has residuals of a head injury sustained in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Evidence of a well-grounded claim has not been submitted. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION A disability is deemed to be service connected when it was incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110. Also, 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 provides that a person who submits a claim for benefits under a law administered by the Secretary shall have the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded. For the following reasons and bases, the Board finds that the veteran's claim is not well grounded and therefore there is no further duty to assist him in the development of his claim. The service medical records, including the reports of examinations conducted for service entrance and discharge, are negative for reference to a head injury. In October 1943, the veteran was treated at a unit dispensary for a contusion and possible fracture of the left great toe, sustained when a piece of a hatch cover fell on his foot. Clinical records make no mention of a head injury being incurred in this incident. Furthermore, the first post-service reference to a head injury was several decades after his separation from service. The veteran has requested service connection for numerous disabilities on numerous occasions since his initial application for benefits in July 1950. These applications were consistently silent for reference to a claimed head injury. Also an August 1986 VA examination was negative for complaints or findings regarding a head injury or residuals therefrom. The veteran first requested service connection for residuals of a head injury in April 1991, well over four decades post service. Accordingly, because the first post-service reference to an inservice head injury was more than forty years after separation from service, and the service medical records are negative for reference to such a head injury, the veteran's current claim is inherently incredible. See King v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19 (1993). The Board notes the veteran's allegations that the complete post- service clinical treatment records have not been associated with the claims folder. Even if such records were part of the record, however, they would not be supportive of his claim without evidence of a head injury or residuals therefrom during or subsequent to his separation from service. Further, the veteran's contention that he was treated for a head injury at the VA hospital in Dublin, Georgia just after separation from service , is contradicted by the records in the claims folder, which indicate his 1947 hospitalization was for treatment of otitis media, or an ear infection. Finally, the Board notes the veteran's contention that he was assigned a different claim number at some point in the past; however, the evidence of record indicates that the veteran's current claim number was assigned in July 1947 and has remained the same since that date. Accordingly, since he has submitted no medical evidence that would support his contentions, the Board finds that the veteran has not met the initial burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that his claim is well grounded. Thus, since the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate his claim, his appeal is dismissed. See Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14 (1993). The Board notes that this decision is to the veteran's benefit since, if he should decide to file another claim in the future, he will not be burdened with having to submit new and material evidence; he need only present a well-grounded claim. McGinnis v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 239, 244 (1993). ORDER A well-grounded claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of a head injury has not been submitted; the case is dismissed. WAYNE M. BRAEUER 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.