Citation Nr: 0530337 Decision Date: 11/14/05 Archive Date: 11/30/05 DOCKET NO. 99-25 447 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Roanoke, Virginia THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted sufficient to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for right eye injury residuals. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite of the feet. 3. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to claimed service-incurred frostbite of the feet. 4. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to claimed service-incurred frostbite of the feet. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a circulatory disability of the lower extremities, to include as secondary to claimed service-incurred frostbite of the feet. 6. Entitlement to disability compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 2002) for residuals of radiation treatment, post-prostatectomy, furnished by VA in 1987. Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Acosta, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 1946 to August 1949 and from January 1951 to January 1954. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 1998 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cleveland, Ohio, Regional Office (RO), which denied an application to reopen a previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for right eye injury residuals. That rating decision also denied claims of entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite of the feet, as well as claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and a "circulatory condition," all claimed as secondary to the claimed service-incurred frostbite of the feet. The February 1998 rating decision also granted a two-month temporary total rating for the service-connected residual of the removal of a cyst from the right lower eyelid manifested by a scar, effective from August 1, 1994. In his September 1998 notice of disagreement (NOD) with the February 1998 rating decision, the veteran stated that he disagreed with the denial "of all my claims." Evidently because the RO's decision on this issue essentially represented a full grant, and the veteran was not specific enough to enable VA to determine whether he meant his NOD to represent a disagreement with, for instance, the effective date assigned for the temporary total rating, the RO did not include this issue in the statement of the case that was issued in November 1998. If, however, the veteran remains in disagreement with any specific aspect of the RO's February 1998 grant of a temporary total rating, he should so indicate, and the RO should thereafter take any appropriate action in this regard. This case also comes before the Board on appeal from a May 1999 rating decision issued by the Cleveland RO, which denied the veteran's claim for compensation benefits under Section 1151 for residuals of radiation therapy, to include radiation enteritis. In regards to the veteran's application to reopen a claim for service connection for right eye injury residuals, it is noted that, by rating decision dated in June 1954, the RO granted service connection for residuals of the removal of a right lower eyelid cyst, with an initial rating of zero percent. Since the veteran is already service-connected for these residuals, his application is deemed to involve service connection for a disability other than his already service- connected residuals of the removal of a right lower eyelid cyst. The record also shows that the veteran requested a hearing at the RO before a Veterans Law Judge but that he thereafter withdrew that request. During the pendency of his appeal, the veteran relocated to Virginia. Accordingly, the Roanoke, Virginia, RO has certified the appeal to the Board. By letter dated in October 2005, the Board notified the veteran that his motion to have the appeal advanced on the docket had been granted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2)(B) (West 2002 & Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2005). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In June 1950, the RO denied a claim of entitlement to service connection for right eye injury residuals; the evidence received since that date is either cumulative or not pertinent to the service connection claim, and none of it relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate that claim for service connection, nor raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating it. 2. It is not shown that the veteran suffered frostbite of the feet during service or that he currently has chronic residuals of that claimed but uncorroborated in-service injury. 3. Diabetes mellitus was initially diagnosed several decades after service and it is not shown to be etiologically related to service or proximately due to a service-connected disability. 4. Hypertension was initially diagnosed several decades after service and it is not shown to be etiologically related to service or proximately due to a service-connected disability. 5. A circulatory disability of the lower extremities was initially diagnosed several decades after service and it is not shown to be etiologically related to service or proximately due to a service-connected disability. 6. The veteran received radiation treatment from VA, post- prostatectomy, in 1987, and his subsequent development of chronic urinary incontinence was a direct result of the radiation treatment, and not due to his willful misconduct. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The June 1950 denial of a claim of entitlement to service connection for right eye injury residuals is final and none of the evidence received since June 1950 is new and material so as to warrant the reopening of that claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.200, 20.201, 20.202, 20.302, 20.1103 (2005). 2. The claimed residuals of frostbite of the feet were neither incurred in nor aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2005). 3. The diagnosed diabetes mellitus was neither incurred in nor aggravated by service nor was it proximately due to or the result of service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310(a) (2005). 4. The diagnosed hypertension was neither incurred in nor aggravated by service nor was it proximately due to or the result of service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310(a). 5. A circulatory disability of the lower extremities was neither incurred in nor aggravated by service nor was it proximately due to or the result of service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310(a). 6. The criteria for entitlement to disability compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 2002) for urinary incontinence, residuals of radiation treatment, post- prostatectomy, furnished by VA in 1987, are met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.361 (2005). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Preliminary matters-The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) The VCAA describes VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2005). The duty to notify Under the VCAA, when VA receives a complete or substantially complete application for benefits, it is required to provide certain notice to the claimant and his representative. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) (2005). In Pelegrini v. Principi (Pelegrini II), 18 Vet. App. 112, 120-21 (2004), the Court held that VA must inform the claimant of any information and evidence not of record (1) that is necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) that VA will seek to provide; (3) that the claimant is expected to provide; and (4) must request that the claimant provide any evidence in his possession that pertains to the claim. In this case, VA provided VCAA-compliant notice to the veteran in regards to his application to reopen and his claims for service connection and for compensation under Section 1151 by means of VCAA letters dated in April 2001, July 2003, and April 2005. The letters complied with the four notification elements cited above, to include the fourth element (see page 3 of the April 2005 letter, asking the veteran to furnish "any evidence in your possession that pertains to your claim[s]"). Thus, the veteran has received adequate VCAA notice. See Short Bear v. Nicholson, No. 03-2145 (U.S. Vet. App. Aug. 31, 2005); see also Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 103 (2005). In Pelegrini II, the Court also held that VCAA notice should be given before an initial decision is issued on a claim by the agency of original jurisdiction. Pelegrini II, 18 Vet. App. at 115. Delayed notice is, however, generally not prejudicial to a claimant. Mayfield. There has been no allegation or showing of prejudice in this case. To the extent that any notice in this case may have been inadequate with regard to timing, the veteran's evident actual knowledge of what was needed to substantiate his claims prior to adjudication by VA provided "a meaningful opportunity to participate in the adjudication process." Short Bear. The duty to assist The VCAA also requires VA to make reasonable efforts to help a claimant obtain evidence necessary to substantiate his claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c), (d) (2005). This "duty to assist" contemplates that VA will help a claimant obtain records relevant to his claim, whether or not the records are in Federal custody, and that VA will provide a medical examination and/or opinion when necessary to make a decision on the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2005). In the present case, the duty to assist has been fulfilled as well, as VA has secured all identified treatment records that are pertinent to the issues on appeal. VA has not ordered a medical examination in regards to the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a right eye injury because the veteran has not fulfilled his initial duty to submit new and material evidence sufficient to reopen that claim: VA's duty to assist a claimant in developing the record and obtaining evidence that would substantiate his claim when the claimant is seeking reopening of a previously denied claim only extends to assistance in securing pertinent records. It does not include a duty to obtain a medical examination unless the veteran submits new and material evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). VA has not ordered a medical examination in regards to the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of frostbite of the feet, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and circulatory disability because, as will be thoroughly explained later in this decision, there is no competent evidence linking these disabilities to service. In his substantive appeal the veteran reported no symptoms of frostbite between service and the time of his current claim. He has claimed that the other disabilities are secondary to frostbite. There is, however, no competent evidence of such a link. Thus examinations are not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002), Wells v. Principi, 326 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In regards to the veteran's application for compensation benefits under Section 1151, the evidence of record is sufficient to allow the claim. Further assistance is, therefore, not required to substantiate the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(d) (2005). There is no suggestion on the current record that there remains evidence that is pertinent to any of the matters on appeal that has yet to be secured. I. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted sufficient to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for right eye injury residuals In a June 1950 rating decision, the RO denied a claim for service connection for right eye injury residuals, after finding that there was no evidence of treatment for, or a diagnosis of, a right eye disability during service, to include at the time of separation. Having been notified of the June 1950 decision denying service connection for residuals of a right eye injury, and of his appellate rights, the veteran did not appeal the denial, so it became final within a year from the notice. Once final, a decision can only be considered on the merits if new and material evidence is received since the time of the prior adjudication. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105; Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273 (1996); Manio v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 140, 145 (1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.200, 20.201, 20.202, 20.302, 20.1103. When determining whether a claimant has submitted new and material evidence, consideration must be given to all the evidence since the last disallowance of the claim on any basis. Evans. In the present case, the June 1950 rating decision, which the veteran did not appeal, was the last final denial of the veteran's service connection claim. Thus, the evidence to be reviewed for purposes of determining whether new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim has been received is the evidence that was associated with the claims files since that date. Amendments to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) relating to the definition of new and material evidence apply to any applications to reopen a finally decided claim received on or after August 29, 2001. Because the veteran filed his application to reopen his service connection claim after that date, the new definition of new and material evidence applies to this case. For applications to reopen filed on or after August 29, 2001, new and material evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) In determining whether evidence is new and material, the credibility of the evidence is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). The evidence received since June 1950 pertaining to the veteran's application to reopen his claim for service connection for right eye injury residuals essentially consists of statements from the veteran restating his belief that he should be service-connected for the residuals of an in-service injury to the right eye, as well as voluminous medical records, none of which reveals the manifestation of a right eye disability other than the residuals of a right lower eyelid cyst removal for which, as noted above, the veteran is already service connected. The "new" statements from the veteran are merely cumulative, as they essentially reiterate his historical contentions of more than 50 years ago, and the medical evidence associated with his claims files since June 1950 is new, but clearly not pertinent to the issue of service connection for the residuals of an in-service injury to the right eye. In sum, none of the newly received evidence can be considered to be new and material, as defined by VA regulation, because it is either cumulative or not pertinent to the service connection claim, and none of it relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim nor raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Accordingly, because the veteran has not submitted new and material evidence, his application to reopen his previously denied claim for service connection for the residuals of an in-service injury to the right eye has failed, and must accordingly be denied. II. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite of the feet In essence, the veteran contends that he developed frostbite in his feet while serving in Korea in the 1940's, and that he is accordingly entitled to be service-connected for its residuals. Service connection is warranted for an injury or disease resulting in disability that was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In order to prove service connection, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability, (2) medical evidence, or in certain circumstances lay testimony, of in- service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) medical evidence of a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341, 346 (1999). The determination as to whether the above three requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1, 8 (1999). All of the above notwithstanding, that a condition or injury occurred in service alone is not enough; there must be an actual disability resulting from that condition or injury in order for service connection to be granted. See Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992). In the absence of proof of a current disease or injury, there can be no valid claim. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The veteran's service medical records for both periods of active military service are entirely silent for complaints or findings related to frostbite of the feet. Nonetheless the veteran is competent to report cold injury to his feet during service, and such injury would be consistent with wintertime service in Korea. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154 (West 2002). Although available service department records do not rule in or out the veteran's peacetime service in Korea, his statements in this regard are credible. Thus, there is evidence in support of the second element needed for service connection. While the post-service medical evidence of record reveals treatment for fungal infections of both feet in 1985, and ingrown toenails and onychomycosis in 1994, it does not reveal a diagnosis of cold injury residuals, or frostbite, at any time. It also does not show, nor suggests, that the veteran currently has chronic residuals of frostbite of the feet that are etiologically related to service. For his part, the veteran has not reported current frostbite residuals (other than diabetes, hypertension, and circulatory disturbance discussed below). The evidence is, therefore, against a finding of current disability. Even if the veteran's contentions could be read as reporting current frostbite symptoms, there is no competent evidence of a link between such symptoms and the claimed frostbite injury in service. The only evidence of record suggesting a nexus between the claimed residuals of frostbite of the feet and service consists of the statements submitted by the veteran in this regard. However, the record does not reflect that the veteran is a medical professional who has the requisite training and knowledge to offer an opinion as to medical diagnosis or etiology. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 495 (1992) (medical diagnosis and causation involve questions that are beyond the range of common experience and knowledge and require the special knowledge and experience of a trained medical professional). The Board is therefore precluded from assigning probative value to the veteran's opinion in this regard. The veteran would be competent to report a continuity of symptoms since service, but he has not done so. See Duenas v. Principi, 18 Vet App 512 (2004). The veteran's claim must fail because there is no competent evidence of (1) a current disability and (2) a nexus between the claimed current disability and service. In short, the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of frostbite of the feet. Reasonable doubt does not arise, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. III. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and a circulatory disability of the lower extremities, to include as secondary to claimed service-incurred frostbite of the feet In addition to the above service-connection criteria, if a cardiovascular disability or diabetes mellitus becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more during the one- year period immediately following a veteran's separation from service, the condition may be presumed to have been incurred in service, notwithstanding that there is no in-service record of the disorder. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The veteran does not claim, and the evidence does not show, that diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or a circulatory disability of the lower extremities was present in service, or within one year of service. In reviewing the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and a circulatory disability of the lower extremities on a direct basis, the service medical records for both periods of active duty are entirely silent as to the manifestation of any of these disabilities at any time. Also, none of these disabilities was diagnosed within one year after separation, but several decades after service, and the veteran has not alleged otherwise. In fact, the veteran has placed the onset of his diabetes mellitus as having taken place in the early 1980's. Specifically, he has stated that he has had diabetes mellitus since 1981 (per a May 18, 1993, VA discharge summary); 1982 (per an April 9, 1996, VA vascular surgery/foot clinic outpatient medical record); and 1983 (per an April 14, 1998, VA outpatient medical record). The veteran has also placed the onset of his hypertension as having taken place in 1980 (per the April 9, 1996, VA vascular surgery/foot clinic outpatient medical record); and in 1985 (per an August 15, 1994, VA discharge summary). Additionally, VA and private medical records reveal treatment in 1997 and 1998 for peripheral vascular disease, which, according to a July 1998 private medical record, the veteran had suffered from for "over the last 4 to 5 years which seems to have gotten worse over the last couple [of] months." Clearly, the record shows that the veteran's diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and circulatory disability, were initially diagnosed not during service or within one year after separation from active military service, but at least several decades after the veteran's last separation from such service. There is also no competent evidence in the claims folders establishing, or even suggesting, a nexus, or causal relationship, between any of these disabilities and service. In particular there is no competent evidence linking the claimed in-service frostbite to diabetes, hypertension, or circulatory disturbance in the lower extremities. As a layperson, the veteran's opinions on these matters are of no probative value. Grottviet v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993) (holding a layperson is not competent to express an opinion as to medical causation). The criteria of an in-service injury or disease and a nexus between a current disability and service are not met in this case. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claims seeking service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and a circulatory disability, on both direct and secondary service connection bases. The Board thus concludes that the criteria for entitlement to service connection for these disabilities are not met. The veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and a circulatory disability of the lower extremities fail on a secondary service connection basis, because the veteran is claiming that they are secondary to the residual of frozen feet, which the Board has just determined are not service connected. Secondary service connection can only be granted for disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). The evidence in these claims is not so evenly balanced so as to allow application of the benefit of the doubt rule as required by law and VA regulations. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. IV. Entitlement to disability compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 2002) for residuals of radiation treatment, post-prostatectomy, furnished by VA in 1987 The record shows that the veteran underwent a prostatectomy (specifically, a cytoscopy and transurethral resection of the prostate) in July 1987. He was given a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Shortly thereafter, he underwent radiation for six weeks to treat the diagnosed adenocarcinoma. Medical records associated with the veteran's claims files since 1987 reveal that, while the veteran was found to have bright red blood per rectum (BRBPR) episodes in April and June 1989, and was suspected to have developed radiation enteritis in April 1992, these episodes were only acute in nature and the radiation treatment was successful in that the adenocarcinoma was shown not to recur (see, in this regard, VA outpatient medical records dated in April and October 1993). An April 1994 VA medical record, however, reveals that the veteran had been suffering from incontinence since his 1987 prostate surgery. In a July 1997 statement, Dr. H.B., a private physician, noted the veteran's history of prostate cancer, with prostatectomy and subsequent radiation therapy to his pelvis in 1987, and opined that, "[u]nfortunately, he is incontinent because of his radiation, but is tolerating that well." In an April 1998 statement, Dr. H.B. indicated that the veteran "has chronic diarrhea from radiation changes to his colon." In May 1999, the veteran filed a claim for benefits under Section 1151, claiming that he had developed radiation enteritis as a result of the radiation treatment received from VA. According to an October 2002 VA medical record, the veteran's medical history was significant for an open prostatectomy for prostate cancer, status post radiation therapy, "with residual urinary incontinence (passes urine on himself without knowing at times, other times, he is aware, but cannot get to the bathroom on time)." Current (2003-2005) VA medical records reveal no evidence of the current manifestation of a chronic gastrointestinal disability, BRBPR episodes, or radiation enteritis. They also show that a radiological study of the veteran's sacrum and coccyx conducted in March 2005 revealed no evidence of destruction of the sacrum and coccyx to suggest osteomyelitis. These more recent VA medical records, however, do confirm that the veteran still suffers from urinary incontinence, as he is reportedly "on diaper use" (per VA medical record dated in March 2005). Pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151, where a claimant suffers injury or aggravation of an injury as a result of VA hospitalization or medical or surgical treatment, not the result of his own willful misconduct or failure to follow instructions, and the injury or aggravation results in additional disability, then compensation, including disability compensation, shall be awarded in the same manner as if the additional disability were service-connected. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 2002). For purposes of this section, a disability or death is a qualifying additional disability if the disability or death was not the result of the veteran's willful misconduct and (1) the disability or death was caused by hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination furnished the veteran under any law administered by the Secretary, and the proximate cause of the disability or death was (A) carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of the Department in furnishing the hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination; or (B) an event not reasonably foreseeable. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151. To establish causation, evidence must show that the hospital care, medical or surgical treatment, or examination resulted in the veteran's additional disability or death. 38 C.F.R. § 3.361(c)(1)). Effective for claims filed on or after October 1, 1997, 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 now precludes awarding benefits in the absence of evidence of VA negligence or an unforeseen event. See Pub. L. No. 104-204, § 422(a), 110 Stat. 2926 (1996); see also VAOPGCPREC 40-97; 63 Fed. Reg. 31263 (1998); as well as the above-cited current version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.361 (2005) (applicable to all claims filed on or after October 1, 1997). In the present case, because the veteran's claim for benefits under Section 1151 was filed in February 1999, evidence of an unforeseen event or evidence of VA negligence is required for his claim to be granted. It is a fact that the veteran received radiation therapy from VA, there is no evidence that his urinary incontinence is a result of willful misconduct, and there is a medical opinion indicating that the veteran's urinary incontinence is a direct result of the radiation therapy received in 1987, with no opinion of record contradicting the private physician's nexus opinion. While there is no showing of carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar instance of fault on the part of VA in furnishing medical care in 1987, the Board finds that the disability that resulted from the radiation therapy in this case is an event that was not reasonably foreseeable, which renders the diagnosed disability a "qualifying" disability under Section 1151. In this regard, the claims folder does not contain a release or medical opinion showing that urinary incontinence was reasonably foreseeable. Accordingly, resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran, the Board concludes that the criteria for entitlement to disability compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 2002) for urinary incontinence, residuals of radiation treatment, post-prostatectomy, furnished by VA in 1987, are met. ORDER New and material evidence not having been submitted sufficient, the claim of entitlement to service connection for right eye injury residuals remains unopened, and the appeal is accordingly denied. Service connection for residuals of frostbite of the feet is denied. Service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to claimed service-incurred frostbite of the feet, is denied. Service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to claimed service-incurred frostbite of the feet, is denied. Service connection for a circulatory disability of the lower extremities, to include as secondary to claimed service- incurred frostbite of the feet, is denied. Disability compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 (West 2002) for urinary incontinence, identified as a residual of radiation treatment, post-prostatectomy, furnished by VA in 1987, is granted. ____________________________________________ Mark D. Hindin Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs