BVA9504378 DOCKET NO. 93-08 994 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for chondromalacia of the knees. 2. Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of an injury to the muscles of the right thigh. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL The veteran and his spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Ripley P. Schoenberger, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1974 to December 1974. This appeal arises from an October 1991 rating decision by the RO. CONTENTIONS The veteran and his representative contend that prior to service the veteran did not have any problems with his knees. After one week of basic training he had to go on sick call because of pain in his knees. It is argued that he injured his right thigh and right knee, and that this has bothered him ever since that time. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board of Veterans' Appeals (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 veteran has failed to meet the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claims of service connection are well grounded. FINDING OF FACT No competent evidence has been submitted to show that the veteran currently has chondromalacia of the knees or the residuals of an injury to the muscles of the right thigh due to disease or injury in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Well-grounded claims for service connection for chondromalacia of both knees and for the residuals of an injury to the muscles of the right thigh have not been submitted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The threshold question to be answered in the veteran's appeal is whether he has presented evidence of well-grounded claims. If not, his application for service connection must fail, and there is no further duty to assist him in the development of his claims. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5107, Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). As will be explained below, the Board finds that the veteran's claims are not well grounded. The United States Court of Veterans Appeals (the Court) has held that the veteran must submit evidence of a plausible or well- grounded claim. Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992). When, as in this case, the issue involves a medical diagnosis or medical causation, competent medical evidence is required. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). Statements from lay witnesses or the veteran in this regard are not sufficient to establish a plausible claim as they are not competent to offer medical opinions. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992). Moreover, the evidence must show that the veteran currently has a disability stemming from service. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.App. 223 (1992). The service medical records show on the induction examination no abnormality of the knees was noted. In mid October 1974 the veteran complained of pain in his right knee and pain in the upper right leg for the past 2 days. He stated that he had been running and fell into a hole. On examination there was no apparent edema or deformity of the right knee. There was tenderness of the right medial tibial condyle and slight tenderness in the right distal thigh. There was a full range of motion of the right knee. The diagnosis was pulled muscle. He was returned to duty with no limitations. In November 1974 he complained of pain in the right distal thigh. He had a full range of motion of the right knee with slight tenderness in the distal thigh. The assessment was myalgia versus strain. He was returned to duty with no limitations. On the discharge examination, no abnormality of the knees was noted; the diagnosis was history of chondromalacia of the right knee. The service medical records are devoid of any complaints or clinical findings of a disability of the left knee. On a VA orthopedic examination, conducted in September 1991, the veteran stated that he pulled something in his right leg on one occasion in service, but had had no further trouble with the pulled muscle. He also stated that he had had no treatment for his knees since his discharge from service. The physical examination revealed a good alignment of the lower extremities, and there was a full range of motion of both knees. Both knees were stable, and there was no effusion or swelling of either knee. There was very mild crepitation of both patellae, but no atrophy of the muscles of the lower extremities. The diagnosis was negative examination of the knees. The post service medical records show that the veteran does not currently have a disability of either knee or any residual disability of the pulled muscle of the right thigh. Moreover, the veteran has not submitted any medical evidence to show that he does, in fact, suffer from chondromalacia of the knees or that he has any residual disability of the pulled muscle in the right thigh. In fact, on his application for compensation received in July 1991, the veteran did not indicate that he had received treatment for the knees or right thigh since his discharge from service 17 years earlier. Thus, he has not established a well- grounded claim. See Tirpak and Grottveit. The testimony that he and his spouse gave at the personal hearing, and the veteran's written statements cannot not be used to establish a well- grounded claim because neither the veteran nor his spouse are competent to offer an opinion concerning medical diagnosis or causation. See Espiritu. Since the veteran has not submitted any competent evidence to support his assertions, he has not presented well-grounded claims. See Grottveit. Thus, the Board does not have jurisdiction to consider the veteran's appeal. Boeck v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 14 (1993). ORDER As well-grounded claims for service connection for chondromalacia of the knees and the residuals of a muscle injury to the right thigh have not been presented, the appeal is dismissed. THOMAS J. DANNAHER 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.