Citation NR: 9726614	
Decision Date: 07/31/97		Archive Date: 08/06/97
DOCKET NO.  95-38 183	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Hartford, 
Connecticut



THE ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for Lyme disease.  



WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL

The veteran



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

S. J. Janec, Associate Counsel





INTRODUCTION

The veteran had active military service from June 1991 to May 
1995.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals 
(Board) from a September 1995 rating decision of the 
Hartford, Connecticut Regional Office (RO) of the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (VA) which denied service connection for 
Lyme disease.  The denial was confirmed by a hearing officer 
in an April 1996 decision.  


CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL

The veteran contends that he has Lyme disease as a result of 
a tick bite in service.  


DECISION OF THE BOARD

The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. 
§ 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 1997), has reviewed and considered 
all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's 
claims file.  Based on a review of the relevant evidence, and 
for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of 
the Board that the veteran has failed to meet his burden of 
submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair 
and impartial individual that his claim is well-grounded.  


FINDINGS OF FACT

1.  During service the veteran received treatment for fever 
and painful joints and muscles.  

2.  The veteran does not currently have Lyme disease or any 
residual disability from a tick bite.  


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The claim of service connection for Lyme disease is not well-
grounded.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 
3.303 (1996).  


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

A determination of service connection requires a finding of 
the existence of a current disability and a determination of 
a nexus between that disability and an injury or disease 
incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110;  
Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet.App. 309, 314 (1993).  

I.  Factual Background

The veteran contends that he has Lyme disease from a tick 
bite.  

Service medical records demonstrate that the veteran was seen 
in June 1993 for complaints of fever and painful joints and 
muscles.  A tick bite was not mentioned.  The impression was 
viral syndrome and Motrin was prescribed.  The veteran was 
seen again in July 1993 with similar complaints.  The 
possibility of a tick bite was questioned.  He was treated 
with Tetracycline.  

On VA examination in April 1996, the veteran gave a history 
of diarrhea and generalized joint aches with swelling and 
limited range of motion associated with a fever in June 1992.  
His symptoms lasted for two weeks.  Tetracycline was 
prescribed for questionable tick bite disease.  He reported 
that he did not recall a tick bite at that time, but 
remembered that he removed ticks from his shoes and socks 
when he was in the field.  He had no present complaints 
except for a clicking in his left jaw.  A history of atypical 
arthralgia which completely resolved was diagnosed.  The 
examiner noted that he did not believe that the veteran had a 
tick like illness, but rather, reactive arthritis to the 
diarrhea, an associated condition caused by some strains of 
E. coli or Campylobacter.  He further opined that the 
clicking in the left jaw joint was not related to the 
arthralgia.  
At a personal hearing in March 1996, the veteran testified 
that he was informed by his examining physician in June 1993 
that he was the fourth person to be seen with complaints of 
fever and muscle and joint pain.  The doctor suspected a tick 
bite illness.  He was prescribed Tetracycline.  He reported 
that he removed many ticks from his body during field 
training exercises in May and June of 1993.  He never noticed 
that he had an actual tick bite or a rash because the ticks 
were very small.  He has no current residuals from this 
illness, but reported a clicking in his jaw.  

The veteran was scheduled to testify at a hearing before a 
member of the traveling Board in June 1997.  He failed to 
report.  

II.  Analysis

The threshold question in this case is whether the veteran 
has presented a well-grounded claim.  A well-grounded claim 
is one which is plausible.  If he has not, the claim must 
fail and there is no further duty to assist in the 
development of the claim.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; Murphy v. 
Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990).  A well-grounded claim 
requires more than an allegation; the claimant must submit 
supporting evidence.  Furthermore, the evidence must justify 
a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is 
plausible.  Tirpak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 609 (1992).  
Also, in order for a claim to be well-grounded, there must be 
competent evidence of a current disability (medical 
diagnosis), of inccurrence or aggravation of a disease or 
injury in service (lay or medical 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, 506 (1995).

Evidentiary assertions by the veteran must be accepted as 
true for the purposes of determining whether a claim is well-
grounded, except where the evidentiary assertion is 
inherently incredible or when the fact asserted is beyond the 
competence of the person making the assertion.  King v. 
Brown, 5 Vet.App. 19, 21 (1993).

The record shows that the veteran was seen for complaints 
fever and muscle and joint pain while on active duty.  He was 
treated and no residual disability was noted.  A tick bite 
illness was later questioned, but was not clearly diagnosed.  
Lyme disease was also not diagnosed at that time.  On VA 
examination in April 1996, the diagnosis was atypical 
arthralgia, completely resolved; Lyme disease was not noted.  
Additionally, the veteran testified that he has no current 
residuals from the illness he experienced in service.  Lay 
statements may be accepted to prove incurrence or aggravation 
of a disease or injury in service; however, a current 
disability must also be shown.  Without evidence of a present 
disability, the claim is not well grounded.  See Caluza, 
supra.  


ORDER

Service connection for Lyme disease is denied.  



		
	GEORGE R. SENYK
	Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals

38 U.S.C.A. §  7102 (West Supp. 1997) 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 & Supp. 1997), 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, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (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.
- 2 -