BVA9503963 DOCKET NO. 93-12 708 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Indianapolis, Indiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Darryl A. Joe, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from November 1954 to October 1956. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) on appeal from an October 1992 rating decision by the Indianapolis, Indiana Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which denied the veteran's claim seeking service connection for a bilateral foot disorder. We acknowledge that the veteran raised the claim of entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder in his substantive appeal to the Board. As this issue is not inextricably intertwined with the issue certified for appeal, we will refer the matter to the RO for proper consideration. The veteran appeared and presented testimony at a January 1993 hearing on appeal held at the RO. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that he developed a bilateral foot disorder while stationed in Germany in 1955. He maintains that during field exercises in October 1955, he experienced frostbite of both feet. The veteran asserts that he was taken to a military hospital, where he received treatment for his bilateral frostbite. 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 preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, claimed as a residual of frostbite. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's claim has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran's bilateral foot disorder is not shown to be of service onset or attributable to frostbite sustained therein. CONCLUSION OF LAW A bilateral foot disorder, claimed as the residual of frostbite, was not incurred in or aggravated by the veteran's active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION We note that we have found that the veteran's claim is well- grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). That is, we find that he has presented a claim which is not implausible. We are also satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed. No further development is required to meet our duty to assist the veteran. The initial claim for service connection was received by the RO in December 1991. He reported treatment in service in a military hospital but denied post-service treatment. Thereafter, in January 1992, the veteran was afforded a VA examination for rating purposes. On that occasion, he reported that the skin on his heels hardened and cracked open. The veteran further reported that he treated his feet with Vaseline, and that the cracks would heal in three weeks time. According to the veteran, the hardening and cracking occurred more often during cold weather. Physical examination demonstrated that the veteran's feet were extremely hard and callused at all metatarsal heads, around the heels, and on the medial aspects of the great toes. The diagnosis was "dry hard and calloused feet." There were no references to frostbite or residuals thereof. In January 1992, the RO furnished the veteran with NA Form 13055, requesting that he complete the form so as to assist in the search for his service medical records. In June 1992, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) reported that any existing service medical records were destroyed in a fire at that facility in July 1973. However, the NPRC did forward Morning Reports relevant to the veteran. The Morning Reports reveal that the veteran was excused from duty and admitted to a military hospital on October 6, 1955. The reports further indicate that, during the hospitalization, the veteran was treated for pneumonia and acute tonsillitis. The records do not contain any references to a bilateral foot disorder or to frostbite. In July 1992, the RO again submitted a request for service medical records related to treatment of the veteran's bilateral foot disorder in 1955. The NPRC's response, consisting of duplicate copies of the documents previously forwarded, was received in September 1992. On the occasion of his January 1993 hearing, the veteran testified that during field exercises he and other members of his military unit were required to sleep in pup tents. According to the veteran, exposure to the elements resulted in his hospitalization for treatment of an unrelated condition. The veteran further stated that it was during his hospitalization that he received treatment for frostbite of both feet. He testified that upon discharge from the hospital, he was informed that the bilateral foot disorder would continue for the remainder of his life, and that he should treat his feet with Vaseline and powder. The veteran also stated that he was thereafter given a special profile which allowed him to wear low quarter shoes and white socks. Regarding postservice treatment, the veteran testified that he has never sought medical treatment for his feet since his separation from active service. A copy of the hearing transcript is of record. Service connection is warranted for the chronic residuals of a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110. If a disorder is not shown to be chronic during service, continuity of symptomatology after service is required to establish that a disorder is chronic. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). In applying the governing law and regulations, the Board has thoroughly reviewed the available records, in view of the unfortunate absence of service medical records. Such circumstance imposes upon VA a heightened duty to assist the veteran in the development of evidence. As noted above, the RO has undertaken a search through the NPRC for treatment records, without success. It is possible that the veteran may, in fact, have been treated for cold exposure in service. However there is no medical evidence whatsoever that establishes that such exposure resulted in residual disability. The veteran has admitted receiving no post-service treatment. Most importantly, no residuals of frostbite were identified on recent VA examination. The current foot findings were first identified in 1992, decades after service, a period of time too remote to suggest that they are service origin. The veteran's testimony has been considered, but is simply not probative in view of the medical record. Under the circumstances of this case, the Board concludes that service connection for the veteran's bilateral foot disorder, to include claimed residuals of frostbite, is not warranted. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the doctrine of giving the benefit of doubt to the veteran, but does not find that the evidence is approximately balanced such as to warrant its application. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, claimed as a residual of frostbite, is denied. N. R. ROBIN 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.