Citation Nr: 0809957 Decision Date: 03/26/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 05-06 529 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite to both feet. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mark Vichich, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from November 1942 to November 1946 and from September 1948 to June 1952. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. The veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a travel board hearing in January 2008; a transcript is of record. In January 2008, the veteran filed a motion to advance on docket. In February 2008, the Board granted the veteran's motion. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran has been notified of the evidence necessary to substantiate his claims, and all relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of this appeal has been obtained. 2. By an unappealed decision dated in January 1992, the RO denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite to both feet. 3. Evidence submitted subsequent to the January 1992 decision is cumulative and redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 4. By an unappealed decision dated in April 2000, the RO denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg. 5. Evidence submitted subsequent to the April 2000 decision is cumulative and redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 6. The evidence does not corroborate the veteran's account of sustaining a shoulder injury in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The rating decision of January 1992 is final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 4005(c) (West 1988); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 19.129, 19.192 (1990). 2. The veteran has not submitted new and material evidence that warrants reopening his claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite to both feet. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2007). 3. The rating decision of April 2000 is final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(c) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103 (1999). 4. The veteran has not submitted new and material evidence that warrants reopening his claim for entitlement to service connection for residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2007). 5. Degenerative joint disease and rotator cuff tendinitis of the left shoulder were not incurred during active service and degenerative joint disease may not presumed to have been incurred therein. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 1112, 1131 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R § 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS I. Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) imposes obligations on VA with respect to its duty to notify and assist a claimant in developing a claim. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2007). Under the VCAA, upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application for benefits, VA is required to notify the veteran and his representative, if any, of any information and medical or lay evidence necessary to substantiate the claim. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (hereinafter the Court) has held that these notice requirements apply to all five elements of a service connection claim, which include: (1) veteran status; (2) existence of a disability; (3) a connection between the veteran's service and the disability; (4) degree of disability; and (5) effective date of the disability. See Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). VA law and regulations also indicate that part of notifying a claimant of what is needed to substantiate a claim includes notification as to what information and evidence VA will seek to provide and what evidence the claimant is expected to provide. Further, VA must ask the claimant to provide any evidence in her or his possession that pertains to the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(a)-(c) (2007). VCAA notice must be provided to a claimant before the initial unfavorable agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on a claim. Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112, 120 (2004). When the veteran is attempting to reopen a previously disallowed claim, VA must notify the veteran of the evidence and information that is necessary to reopen the claim and the evidence and information that is necessary to establish entitlement to the underlying claim for the benefits sought. Kent v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 1, 9 (2006). This requires VA to look at the bases for the prior denial and to respond with a letter describing what evidence would be necessary to substantiate that element or elements required to establish service connection that were found insufficient in the previous denial. Id. at 10. The Board finds that the requirements of the VCAA have been met and that VA has no further duty to notify prior to Board adjudication. Prior to initial adjudication of the veteran's claim, in correspondence dated in October 2004, the RO advised the veteran of what the evidence must show to establish entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits for his bilateral foot, right knee, and left shoulder claims currently on appeal. The RO advised the veteran of VA's duties under the VCAA and the delegation of responsibility between VA and the veteran in procuring the evidence relevant to the claims, including which portion of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate the claims was to be provided by the veteran and which portion VA would attempt to obtain on behalf of the veteran. The RO also specifically requested that the veteran send any evidence in his possession that pertained to the claims. As pertaining to the residuals of frostbite to both feet and residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg claims, the Appeals Management Center (AMC) informed the veteran of what types of evidence qualified as "new" and "material" evidence, and informed him of the reason why these claims were previously denied. See Kent v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 1, 9 (2006). The RO provided the veteran with another VCAA notice letter in September 2007. In that correspondence, the RO addressed the veteran's right knee disability, to include the leg. The content of this notice was essentially the same as the October 2004 correspondence except that the RO included notice of the disability rating and effective date elements in compliance with Dingess/Hartman, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). The veteran was not provided with fully compliant notice with respect to his right knee/leg disability claim prior to the initial AOJ adjudication of that claim. There is also no evidence the veteran was ever notified of the disability rating and effective date elements with respect to his bilateral foot and left shoulder claims in compliance with Dingess/Hartman, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). Despite these deficiencies, the Board finds no prejudice. See Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881, 891 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that VCAA notice errors are presumed to be prejudicial and it is VA's duty to rebut the presumption). For reasons discussed more fully below, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant's claim for service connection for a left shoulder disorder. The Board also finds that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the claims for right knee/leg and bilateral foot disabilities. Thus, no disability rating or effective date will be assigned for either disability and failure to notify the veteran of these elements has resulted in no prejudice. Finally, the Board also finds that the RO has satisfied VA's duty to assist. The RO has obtained the veteran's service medical records and VA Medical Center (VAMC) treatment records. The RO also provided the veteran with a VA examination for each disability claimed on appeal. The veteran has not made the RO or the Board aware of any other evidence relevant to his appeal and no further development is required to comply with the duty to assist the veteran in developing the facts pertinent to his claims. Accordingly, the Board will proceed with appellate review. II. New and Material Evidence Legal Criteria A veteran may reopen a finally adjudicated claim by submitting new and material evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2007). New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2007). 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. Id. 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. Id. When determining whether the claim should be reopened, the credibility of the newly submitted evidence is presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 512-13 (1992). In order for evidence to be sufficient to reopen a previously disallowed claim, it must be both new and material. If the evidence is new, but not material, the inquiry ends and the claim cannot be reopened. Smith v. West, 12 Vet. App. 312, 314 (1999). If it is determined that new and material evidence has been submitted, the claim must be reopened. VA may then proceed to evaluate the merits of the claim on the basis of all evidence of record, but only after ensuring that the duty to assist the veteran in developing the facts necessary for his claim has been satisfied. Service connection will be granted if it is shown that a veteran has a disability resulting from an injury or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2007). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2007). "Generally, to prove service connection, a claimant must submit (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 between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury." Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341, 346 (1999). Where the determinative issue involves a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence is required. This burden typically cannot be met by lay testimony because laypersons are not competent to offer medical opinions. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-95 (1992). Procedural History A review of the record shows that the veteran's initial claim for service-connected benefits for residuals of frostbite to both feet was denied in a March 1972 rating decision. The veteran appealed that decision to the Board. In August 1972, the Board denied the veteran's claim and it became final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 4005(b) (West 1970); 38 C.F.R. § 19.104 (1972). The veteran again filed a claim for service-connected benefits for residuals of frostbite to both feet in March 1991. The RO denied that claim in a rating decision dated in January 1992. In correspondence dated in February 1992, the RO informed the veteran of the denial and advised him of his procedural and appellate rights. The veteran did not appeal that denial and it became final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 4005(c) (West 1988); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 19.129, 19.192 (1990). In December 1999, the veteran filed a claim for service- connected compensation benefits for residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg. The RO denied that claim in a rating decision dated in April 2000. The RO notified the veteran of the denial and advised him of his appellate rights in a letter dated in May 2000. The veteran failed to appeal that decision and it became final. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(c) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103 (1999). The veteran filed the present claims in September 2004. Those claims were denied in a rating decision dated in January 2005. The veteran appealed within the applicable time limit and the issues are now before the Board. In the Board decision of August 1972, the Board explained that service connection for residuals of frostbite of the feet was being denied because service medical records showed no treatment for frostbite and a recent VA examination failed to show evidence of manifestation of residuals of frostbite. In the RO decision of January 1992, the RO explained that the claim for residuals of frostbite to both feet was being denied because his service medical records showed no treatment for frostbite and that new and material evidence had not been submitted since the August 1972 decision. In the April 2000 rating decision, the RO explained service connection for burns of the right lower leg was being denied because service medical records were negative for diagnosis, treatment or other findings of such a condition and because the veteran had not submitted any medical evidence showing burns to the right lower leg related to military service. Evidence and Analysis Prior to the last final denial in January 1992, the evidence pertaining to the claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite to both feet included service medical records and a VA examination report. The service medical records revealed that the veteran received treatment for an ingrown toenail in the right foot and cellulitis in the right toe secondary to the ingrown toenail. The date of treatment was in September 1946 and the place of treatment was in Sapporo, Japan. The service medical records showed no treatment or diagnosis of any other foot condition. In his claim for compensation benefits, dated in February 1972, the veteran claimed he incurred frostbite of the feet while participating in the Battle of the Bulge in Europe in December 1944. The veteran underwent a VA medical examination in May 1972. In a report of that examination, the examining physician stated there was little or no evidence of arterial insufficiency and no gross evidence of old vascular injury. The physician noted possible gout. Evidence pertaining to the claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite to both feet received since the last final denial in January 1992 included VAMC treatment records; written statements submitted by the veteran; a September 2005 VA cold injury protocol examination report with addendum; and a transcript of his travel board hearing from January 2008. At his travel board hearing, he testified that he was exposed to cold weather in December 1944 while participating in the Battle of the Bulge. The veteran recalled being unable to start a fire because such an action would have made it easier for the enemy to detect him and his comrades. The veteran claimed to have spent a month or longer on the front line and that during that time, his feet became discolored due to the cold. In the VA examination report, Dr. A.D. discussed the veteran's subjective complaints and current objective examination findings and diagnosed remote frostbite, both feet with residual. Dr. A.D. also noted that diabetic peripheral sensory neuropathy may contribute to his current symptoms as well. In an addendum to the VA examination report, dated in January 2006, Dr. A.D. reported that he had reviewed the claims file and that it did not show any documentation of frostbite of the feet. Thus, Dr. A.D. concluded, frostbite-related residuals in the feet could not be attributed to active duty service. The Board finds that new and material evidence has not been submitted with respect to the claim for residuals of frostbite to both feet. Prior to the last final denial of the claim, the medical evidence included no findings that the veteran sustained a cold-exposure injury in service or currently exhibited any frostbite residuals. Although the veteran provided additional details of his recollections of sustaining frostbite in service, he has submitted no new evidence in support of his recollections. As for the VA examination report with addendum, it does not relate any current examination findings to active duty service. Thus, although it is "new" evidence, it is not material and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Prior to the April 2000 decision denying the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg, the evidence pertaining to this claim included the veteran's service medical records, his DD Form 214s documenting his three periods of service, and statements in support of his claim. In a statement dated in December 1999, the veteran asserted he had sustained burns to the lower right leg. The service medical records were entirely negative for complaints, treatment, or diagnoses of any injury to the right knee or leg. The veteran's DD Form 214s did not document that the veteran had earned any awards or medals indicative of combat. Evidence pertaining to the residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg received since the last final denial in April 2000 included VAMC treatment records; written statements submitted by the veteran; a VA examination report, dated in September 2005; and his travel board hearing testimony. In a statement dated in September 2004, the veteran maintained he injured his right knee and leg in a shrapnel injury in December 1944. The veteran recalled staying at a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (MASH) unit for two and a half days and being awarded a Purple Heart because of this. At a hearing before a Decision Review Officer held at the RO in May 2005, the veteran testified that in December 1944, he was in Bastogne, France. It was here, the veteran claimed, that he sustained a shrapnel wound to the right leg requiring him to stay in a MASH unit for two and a half days. The veteran stated that he would never forget that because he got a fresh change of uniforms and extra socks. He also testified that in addition to earning a Purple Heart Medal, he also earned the Combat Infantry Badge (CIB). In the VA examination report dated in September 2005, Dr. A.D. related that the veteran reported sustaining a shrapnel injury to the right knee in 1945 resulting in a scar. On examination, Dr. A.D. detected a scar, slightly distal to the patella in the right knee area anteriorly. The scar measured one and one half inches by one half inch. Dr. A.D. found the scar to be soft and non-adherent to the skin. Dr. A.D. described the scar as superficial and without inflammation, edema, keloid formation, ulceration, induration, or elevation. Dr. A.D. diagnosed right knee scar, healed with minimal residual pain. Dr. A.D. also noted a one-inch by one-quarter-inch scar on the right ankle without significant symptoms or abnormality. In an addendum to the VA examination report, which was dated in January 2006, Dr. A.D. stated that he had reviewed the claims file but found no documentation of a shrapnel injury to the right knee or leg. Therefore, Dr. A.D. concluded, he could not provide an opinion without speculating. The Board declines to reopen the residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg claim because the evidence submitted since the last final denial in April 2000 does not satisfy the standard for new and material evidence found at 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2007). The evidence of record prior to the last final denial in April 2000 failed to show that the veteran sustained an injury in service. The only evidence received since that time included the VA examination report noting findings of scars on the right knee and ankle. This evidence does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim; namely, that the veteran sustained the claimed injury in service. The veteran provided statements at his travel board hearing to that effect, but such statements were not corroborated by any evidence, such as a DD Form 214 documenting receipt of either the Purple Heart of CIB. The additionally submitted evidence is cumulative and redundant and the claim must not be reopened. III. Service Connection The veteran is claiming service connection for a left shoulder disability that he alleges resulted from injuries sustained in combat. At the veteran's travel board hearing, he testified that he currently suffered from residuals of a left shoulder injury he sustained in one of the three combat parachute jumps he made during the war. Regarding the circumstances of the initial injury, the veteran recalled that he was taught to roll onto his side when he landed when parachuting, but that sometimes he landed on his shoulder. The veteran claimed that this is what happened to him one time in Holland in 1945, resulting in an injury to his left shoulder. The veteran stated that medics wrapped his shoulder in the field. The veteran testified that he currently received treatment at the VAMC for shoulder pain that had existed since this incident. In the case of any veteran who engaged in combat with the enemy in active service with a military, naval, or air organization of the United States during a period of war, campaign, or expedition, the Secretary shall accept as sufficient proof of service-connection of any disease or injury alleged to have incurred in or aggravated by such service satisfactory lay or other evidence of service incurrence or aggravation of such injury or disease, if consistent with circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation in such service, and, to that end, shall resolve every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran. Service-connection of such injury or disease may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) (2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d) (2007). The phrase "engaged in combat with the enemy" requires that the veteran have personally participated in events constituting an actual fight or encounter with military foe or hostile unit or instrumentality. VAOPGCPREC 12-99, 65 Fed. Reg. 6256-6258 (2000). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding whether the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(b) (West 2002), VAOPGCPREC 12-99, 65 Fed. Reg. 6256-6258 (2000). The Board first considers whether the evidence supports finding that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy. At a hearing before a Decision Review Officer held at the RO in May 2005, the veteran testified that he landed in England in 1944. The veteran stated that on June 6, 1944, he left England aboard a glider, landed on continental Europe, and took part in D-day and the Invasion of Normandy. In a previous claim for compensation benefits, dated in February 1972, the veteran had also claimed he participated in the Battle of the Bulge in Europe in December 1944. The veteran also reported injuring his right leg in combat. Regarding the circumstances of that injury, the veteran remembered getting into the back of a truck in Bastogne and that the truck hit a mine. The veteran stated that he suffered injury to the lower right kneecap, lost consciousness, and received treatment as an outpatient. The veteran also claimed he was awarded a Purple Heart as a result of this incident. The veteran remembered that an officer came to the MASH unit and pinned a Purple Heart on him and recorded information from his dog tags. The veteran stated that this incident occurred in December 1944. The veteran stated that he would never forget that because he got a fresh change of uniforms and extra socks. At the veteran's travel board hearing, he testified that in addition to earning a Purple Heart Medal, he also earned the CIB. The veteran claimed that his efforts to obtain documentation of this were unsuccessful because VA had told him his records were lost in the St. Louis fire, which destroyed many service records. The veteran's claims file included three DD Form 214's documenting his three periods of active duty. According to these documents, the veteran served in the U.S. Army from November 1942 to October 1945, October 1945 to November 1946, and September 1948 to June 1952. According to the first DD Form 214, he served in the 326th Glider Infantry and had foreign service from January 1945 to August 1945. The veteran departed the continental United States on January 26, 1945 and arrived at his destination on February 8, 1945 according to this document. The veteran returned to the United States on August 27, 1945. The total length of foreign service during this period of active duty service was listed as 7 months and 2 days. This document also showed that he earned the American Theater Campaign Medal, EAME (European-African-Middle Eastern) Campaign Medal with 1 Bronze Star, Good Conduct Medal, and 1 Overseas Service Bar. According to the second DD Form 214, he served in the 187th Glider Infantry and had foreign service from April 1946 to November 1946. This document also showed that he earned the Parachutist's Badge, World War II Victory Medal, and Army of Occupation Medal. According to an undated Separation Qualification Record from the Army of the United States, the veteran served with the 187th Glider Infantry Regiment in Japan some time between November 1942 and November 1946. The Separation Qualification Record also showed that the veteran completed parachute training at Fort Benning, Georgia and made 11 jumps during that training. According to the third DD Form 214, the veteran served in the 501st Replacement Company, 1st Armored Division and had no foreign service during that period. Upon reviewing this evidence, the Board concludes that the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy is and not entitled to the presumptions in 1154(b). There are too many discrepancies between the veteran's recollections of his service and what is found in his service records to corroborate his account. For example, he claimed participation in both the Invasion of Normandy in June 1944 and the Battle of the Bulge in December 1944, yet his DD Form 214 for this period does not place him in Europe until February 8, 1945. This is inconsistent with his participation in either event. Also weighing against finding that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy is the lack of any documentation that the veteran earned either the Purple Heart Medal or the CIB as he had claimed. Although the veteran earned numerous awards and badges, none is indicative of combat as either the Purple Heart Medical or CIB. Considering the merits of the left shoulder disability claim without applying 1154(b), the Board finds the claim must be denied for several reasons. First, the veteran's service medical records were negative for diagnosis, treatment, or complaint of a shoulder injury. Second, the competent medical evidence included no opinion linking a current left shoulder disorder to an incident in service. In a VA examination report, dated in September 2005, and an addendum to that report, dated in January 2006, Dr. A.D. discussed current examination findings and the veteran's subjective complaints. Dr. A.D. diagnosed remote left shoulder injury with residual, degenerative joint disease, and rotator cuff tendinitis. In the addendum, Dr. A.D. stated that he could not provide a nexus opinion without resorting to speculation because the veteran's claims file failed to document a left shoulder injury. Third, nearly four decades past from the time of the veteran's discharge to the time he filed his service connection claim. All of these factors weigh heavily against the veteran's claim. Service connection for arthritis (degenerative joint disease) may be also presumed if the disease becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§1101, 1112, 1113 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (2007). The Board has also considered whether this presumption applies but finds that it does not. The evidence does not show, and the veteran does not contend, that his arthritis became manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. The Board has considered the possibility that the veteran's service medical records are incomplete because they may have been damaged in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Missouri in 1973. There are a few references in the claims file to this effect. In a letter dated in July 1991, the RO notified the veteran that his service medical records were presumed to be "fire related." In response to the RO's October 2004 request for personnel records, the NPRC notified the RO that the veteran's personnel records were "fire related" and provided the veteran's DD 214s instead. In cases where the veteran's service records are unavailable through no fault of the claimant, there is a heightened obligation to explain findings and conclusions and to carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine under 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). Upon reviewing the claims file, it does not appear that the service medical records are incomplete. The veteran's service medical records currently on file include enlistment examination reports dated in November 1942 and September 1948, and separation examination reports dated in October 1945, November 1946, and June 1952. The separation examination reports correspond to each of his service periods. Also among the records were progress notes showing treatment for cellulitis and an ingrown toenail. Although the service medical records do not include a re-enlistment examination report for the veteran's second period of active duty service, this period began the day after his discharge from his first period of active service. Thus, he already had undergone an examination the previous day and it is possible the veteran did not undergo another examination. The absence of an enlistment examination report does not suggest the veteran's records are incomplete. Moreover, the St. Louis fire occurred in July 1973, yet the Waco, Texas VA RO received the above-referenced service medical records in March 1972. That the RO received what appear to be substantially complete service medical records prior to the fire suggests that no service medical records were left behind to be destroyed. In short, the evidence suggests that all service medical records are currently in the claims file and the Board does not have a heightened obligation to explain findings and conclusions and to carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. O'Hare, 1 Vet. App. at 367 (1991). As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. 5107(b) (2002); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 58 (1990). ORDER 1. New and material evidence having not been received, entitlement to service connection for residuals of frostbite to both feet is denied. 2. New and material evidence having not been received, entitlement to service connection for residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg is denied. 3. Service connection for a left shoulder disorder is denied. ____________________________________________ John E. Ormond, Jr. Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs