BVA9503215 DOCKET NO. 90-23 290 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael Martin, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active duty for training from February to September 1974. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a decision of July 1989 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Boston, Massachusetts, Regional Office (RO). CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The appellant contends that the RO made a mistake by denying her claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. She asserts that she has a mental illness which began during service. She states that she was seen by a psychiatrist during service while she was at Ft. Sam Houston. 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 appellant'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 presented evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that her claim is well-grounded. FINDING OF FACT The appellant has not presented any evidence that a psychiatric disorder was present during service, or that a psychosis was manifest to a compensable degree within one year after separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The appellant has not presented evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is well- grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 11134, 1131, 1137, 5107, 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303(c), 3.307, 3.309 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The initial question which must be answered is whether the appellant has met her burden of presenting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that her claim is well-grounded. If she has not met that burden, then the claim must be dismissed and there is no further duty to assist the appellant with the development of evidence. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5107, 7105(d)(5) (West 1991). See also Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14 (1993). After considering all of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the appellant has not met this burden. In general, service connection may be granted for disability due to disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § § 1110, 1131 (West 1991). If a psychosis is manifest to a compensable degree within one year after separation from service, the disorder may be presumed to have been incurred in service. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1994). The appellant, however, has not presented any evidence that a psychiatric disorder was present during service, or that a psychosis was manifest to a compensable degree within one year after separation from service. The appellant's service medical records do not contain any references to an acquired psychiatric disorder. In fact, a report of medical history given by the appellant in September 1974 for the purpose of her separation from service shows that she denied having a history of depression or excessive worry, or nervous trouble of any sort. The earliest post-service medical record containing references to a psychiatric disorder is dated several years after the appellant's separation from service. The record, a VA hospital discharge summary dated in December 1978, shows that the appellant was admitted after a suicide attempt. She gave a history of becoming extremely depressed and tense after a dispute with her boyfriend. The summary does not contain any references to the appellant's period of service. Therefore, the record does not support the appellant's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. A treatment summary document prepared in the Spring of 1986 by Martin Pildis, M.D., contains a history of the appellant's psychiatric treatment. The Board notes that this record also does not contain any references to service. In fact, the document contradicts the appellant's contention that she was treated by psychiatrists during service. The treatment summary shows that the appellant reportedly first sought treatment in 1975. Her symptoms at that time reportedly included depression, suicidal ideation, and self-destructive acts including drug overdoses, wrist slashing, and self mutilation. The psychiatrist noted that at times she had fulfilled the diagnostic requirements for paranoid schizophrenia and major depression. The document does not, however, show that these psychoses were present within one year after her separation from service. Significantly, the document also shows that the appellant's working diagnosis was borderline personality disorder. Under the applicable law and regulations, a personality disorder is not considered to be a disease or injury within the meaning of legislation providing for disability compensation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c) (1994). The RO has attempted to obtain additional medical records which may be relevant to the appellant's claim. For example, the RO attempted to obtain the medical treatment records and notes from Dr. Pildis, and records from hospitalizations which occurred during the late 1970s. The appellant, however, has not responded to numerous letters from the RO requesting her assistance with the development of evidence. As a result, the evidence could not be obtained. The Board notes that the appellant has failed to fulfill her duty under the applicable law and regulations to assist with the development of evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1994). See also Wood v Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 193 (1991), in which the Court of Veterans Appeals noted that the duty to assist applies to the claimant as well as to the VA. The Court stated that if a claimant wishes help, he or she cannot passively wait for it in circumstances where he or she may have information which is essential in obtaining the putative evidence. For the foregoing reasons, the Board concludes that the appellant has not presented evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is well-grounded. Accordingly, the claim must be dismissed. ORDER The claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is dismissed. WARREN W. RICE, JR. 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.