Citation Nr: 1007471 Decision Date: 03/01/10 Archive Date: 03/11/10 DOCKET NO. 08-30 065 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Honolulu, Hawaii THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for glomerulonephritis. 2. Entitlement to service connection for ulcer conditions. 3. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Meawad, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1978 to March 1981 and from March 1984 to September 1998. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2007 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Honolulu, Hawaii, that denied the above claims. The issues of service connection for an ulcer condition and hypertension are addressed in the REMAND portion of the decision below and are REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. FINDING OF FACT There is no competent evidence of record showing that the Veteran currently suffers from glomerulonephritis. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for glomerulonephritis have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2009). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury or disease in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.306. In order to prevail on the issue of service connection there must be competent evidence of a current disability; medical evidence, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in- service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and competent evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181 (1992); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; every item of evidence does not have the same probative value. After a careful review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for glomerulonephritis. The competent medical evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran currently suffers from glomerulonephritis. The evidence of record shows that during service in July 1986, the Veteran was diagnosed as having glomerulonephritis. On separation, however, there was no abnormality of the renal system noted. Furthermore, post-service medical treatment records are silent for any findings of glomerulonephritis. As was stated earlier, a current disability is required in order to establish service connection. Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. Therefore, in the absence of evidence of a current disability, the preponderance of evidence is against service connection for glomerulonephritis and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b). The evidence in this case 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. The preponderance is against the Veteran's claim and it must be denied. Notice and Assistance Upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application for benefits and prior to an initial unfavorable decision on a claim by an agency of original jurisdiction, VA is required to notify the appellant of the information and evidence not of record that is necessary to substantiate the claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002); Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The notice should also address the rating criteria or effective date provisions that are pertinent to the appellant's claim. Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). The RO provided the appellant pre-adjudication notice by a letter dated in March 2007. VA has obtained service treatment records and assisted the appellant in obtaining evidence. In this case, VA need not obtain an examination as the evidentiary record does not show that the Veteran currently suffers from glomerulonephritis. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). All known and available records relevant to the issues on appeal have been obtained and associated with the appellant's claims file; and the appellant has not contended otherwise. VA has substantially complied with the notice and assistance requirements and the appellant is not prejudiced by a decision on the claim at this time. ORDER Service connection for glomerulonephritis is denied. REMAND Service treatment records show that the Veteran was treated twice for an ulcer, in March 1982 and July 1986. The Veteran was also noted to have hypertension during the treatment in July 1986. On separation examination in June 1998, the Veteran's G-U system was reported as normal and his blood pressure was within normal limits. Post-service treatment records show that the Veteran has been diagnosed as having hypertension. The earliest indication of record of a diagnosis of hypertension is August 2006. Prior to August 2006, the Veteran's blood pressure appeared to be within normal limits. In addition, the Veteran has been diagnosed as having gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in October 2002. In light of the evidence of record showing continued symptomatology, the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to obtain a medical opinion to determine the nature and etiology of his current hypertension and GERD. Such opinions are necessary for a determination on the merits of the claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4); 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488 (1997). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the current nature and likely etiology of any current hypertension, GERD or ulcer condition. The claims file must be made available to the examiner for review prior to the examination. All necessary tests should be conducted and the examiner should review the results of any testing prior to completion of the report. Based on the examination and review of the record, the examiner is requested to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., whether there is at least a 50 percent probability) that any currently diagnosed hypertension, GERD or ulcer condition had its onset during active military service or are related to in-service disease or injury, including the inservice diagnosis of hypertension and ulcer treatment. The examiner must provide a comprehensive report including complete rationales for all conclusions reached. 2. Readjudicate the Veteran's claims on appeal, with application of all appropriate laws and regulations and consideration of any additional information obtained. If the decision with respect to the claims remains adverse to the Veteran, he should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded a reasonable period of time within which to respond thereto. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2009). ______________________________________________ M. E. LARKIN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs