Citation Nr: 0003879 Decision Date: 02/15/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 97-24 903 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Hartford, Connecticut THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Kimberly E. Harrison Osborne, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from November 1996 to February 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 1997 rating decision by the RO which denied service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder. In April 1999, the Board remanded the claim to the RO for further development. FINDINGS OF FACT The veteran has not submitted competent evidence to show a plausible claim of service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim of service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION I. Factual Background The veteran had active military service from November 1996 to February 1997. During a March 1996 enlistment examination, the veteran reported he sprained his right ankle in 1994. It was noted he wore a cast for three weeks and made a full recovery. The enlistment examination shows the veteran underwent physical inspections in August, September, and November of 1996. He was qualified on all occasions. In December 1996 and in January 1997, he was treated for bilateral tendonitis of the ankle. However, most of his treatment involved the left ankle. December 1996 X-ray studies of the left foot were normal. Sick call reports from December 1996 and January 1997 show the veteran complained of ankle pain, but some of the reports do not identify whether it was the right or left ankle. A January 1997 report noted that the reason for recommendation for service separation (based on incapability) was bilateral ankle tendonitis. In February 1997, the veteran filed a claim of service connection for tendonitis of both ankles. On March 1997 VA examination, the veteran gave a history of spraining his right ankle in 1994. He said that during service he developed sharp pains over the tops of his feet to the ankles, due to constant running and other activities. He reported he was separated from service due to problems with his ankles and feet. His present complaint was that his ankles hurt, especially after excessive walking or standing greater than two hours. He reported he did not take medication when his ankles hurt. Physical examination of the feet revealed that the range of motion of the feet was essentially normal, but he complained of discomfort on inversion and eversion. There was no swelling and no deformity except for flatfeet. The diagnosis was history of a sprained right ankle in 1994. In a June 1997 statement, the veteran's father stated he was not aware of the veteran having any pain in his ankle before joining the military. In a June 1997 statement, the veteran's mother stated the veteran hurt his right ankle a few years ago but he had no problems with his left ankle. She stated the veteran did not have a problem with tendonitis of the left ankle. She related that although the right ankle was previously injured, it got better and allowed him to do a security job for over a year. In June 1997, the veteran alleged that his current ankle problems were due to service. In April 1999, the Board remanded the claim of service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder to the RO for further development. This development included obtaining all pre-service and post-service treatment records for a bilateral ankle disorder since 1994 and scheduling the veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any left and right ankle disorder. In May 1999, the RO contacted the veteran and requested he submit the names and address of all sources of treatment for right and left ankle problems since 1994. The veteran never responded to the RO's request. In November 1999, the veteran failed to report for VA examination. II. Analysis Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury that was incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The preliminary requirement for a claim of service connection is that the applicant submit evidence which is sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that he has presented a well-grounded claim, meaning a claim which is plausible. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). If a claim is not well grounded, the VA has no duty to assist the veteran in developing pertinent facts, and the claim must be denied. Id. In order for a claim for service connection to be well grounded, there must be competent evidence of a current disability (a medical diagnosis), of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service (medical evidence or, in some circumstances, lay evidence), and of a nexus between the in-service injury or disease and the current disability (medical evidence). Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 498 (1995). At the outset, the Board notes the veteran failed to report for a November 1999 VA examination which was scheduled to determine whether he currently has a chronic bilateral ankle disorder. The governing regulation provides that his claim must therefore be reviewed based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. The determinative question in the instant case is whether the veteran has submitted a well-grounded claim of service connection. Service medical records mention a history of treatment in 1994, before service, for a right ankle sprain. The veteran served on active duty from November 1996 to February 1997. Service medical records show that in December 1996 and in January 1997 he was treated for bilateral ankle tendonitis. Most of his complaints and treatment, however, pertained to the left ankle. December 1997 X-ray studies of the left foot were normal. There are no post-service medical records reflecting a chronic bilateral ankle disorder. VA examination of the ankles in March 1997 was essentially negative. The physician diagnosed "history" of right ankle sprain in 1994, but the examination did not describe an actual current right ankle disability. The mere notation of "history" does not constitute a current medical diagnosis of a disability. Sanchez-Benitez v. West, No. 97-1948 (U.S. Vet.App. Dec. 29, 1999). Furthermore, there was no mention of a left ankle disorder recorded on examination. In the absence of medical diagnosis of a present disability of the ankles, and medical evidence linking it with service, the claim for service connection is not well grounded. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 223 (1992); Caluza, supra. Moreover, the veteran's assertion that he currently has a bilateral ankle disorder due to his period of active service is insufficient to well ground his claim of service connection. As a layman, he is not competent to render an opinion regarding diagnosis or etiology, and his statements do not serve to make his claim well grounded. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492 (1992). Likewise, the veteran's parents are not competent to offer statements regarding medical diagnosis or causation. Therefore, their statements are insufficient to well ground the claim of service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder. Id. Since the veteran has not met his initial burden of presenting evidence of a well-grounded claim for service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder, his claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). ORDER Service connection for a bilateral ankle disorder is denied. L. W. TOBIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals