Citation Nr: 18140588 Decision Date: 10/04/18 Archive Date: 10/03/18 DOCKET NO. 15-19 879 DATE: October 4, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a dental disability, for compensation purposes, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The claimed disability, chipped teeth, is not a disability for which service connection for compensation purposes may be granted. CONCLUSION OF LAW The claim for service connection for a dental disability, for compensation purposes, is without legal merit. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1712; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.381, 4.150. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1996 to November 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon. The Veteran claims that she is entitled to service connection for a dental disability due to the fact that she had fillings in service that were done improperly. She has further claimed, in her June 2015 VA Form 9, that due to her treatment in service, she has cracked teeth that are chipping. She alleged that she is entitled to $30,000 for the constant pain. The Board notes that in April 2012, the RO sent the Veteran a letter asking her to clarify her claim—specifically, to indicate whether she was filing a claim for service connection, or for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151. In a September 2012 Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran indicated that she was filing a claim for service connection and not a claim under section 1151. As a final preliminary matter, the Board notes that a claim for service connection for a dental disability is also considered a claim for VA outpatient dental treatment. Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302, 305-06 (1993). A review of the records reveals, however, that the RO has only adjudicated the issue of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for VA compensation purposes. In the April 2015 statement of the case, the RO indicated that it referred the Veteran’s claim to the dental clinic at the VA Medical Center which serves her area of residence. To date, it does not appear that an appeal had been generated regarding the request for dental treatment. Thus, the service connection claim for a dental disability is the only issue before the Board. Turning to the Veteran’s claim, the Board finds that the claim fails as a matter of law. As discussed in more detail below, the Veteran does not have a dental disability that, under law, is eligible for service connection disability compensation. Service connection may 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). However, under current legal authority, compensation is only available for certain types of dental and oral conditions, such as impairment of the mandible, loss of a portion of the ramus, and loss of a portion of the maxilla. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150 (setting forth the schedule of ratings for dental and oral conditions). Compensation is available for loss of teeth only if such loss is due to in-service trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis, and not due to the loss of the alveolar process as a result of periodontal disease. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Code 9913, Note. Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not compensable disabilities, but may be service connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment. 38 U.S.C. § 1712; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.381, 4.150. Considering the pertinent evidence in light of the governing legal authority, the Board finds that service connection for chipped teeth, or teeth requiring fillings (treatable carious teeth), is not warranted. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s service dental records reflect that while on active service, she received somewhat regular dental treatment, which included treatment for cavities with fillings, and the removal of her wisdom teeth in October 1997. However, there is no evidence of record, nor does the Veteran or her representative allege, that the Veteran has a dental disorder for which compensation may be payable. The Veteran should understand that this decision does not adjudicate the issue of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for treatment purposes only, or the factual issues relating to such a claim. A claim of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for treatment purposes only is a separate and distinct claim from a claim of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes. As discussed above, the RO indicated that it forwarded the Veteran’s claim for treatment purposes to the appropriate VA Medical Center. In conclusion, as the Veteran seeks service connection for chipped teeth, and such a disability can only be considered service-connected for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment and not for compensation purposes, the claim for entitlement to service connection for a dental disability, for compensation purposes, must be denied. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (where the law and not the evidence is dispositive, the claim must be terminated or denied as without legal merit). H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Angeline DeChiara, Associate Counsel