Citation Nr: 18157066 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 14-11 766 DATE: December 11, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran died in December 2003 due to respiratory failure, he had no service-connected disabilities, and his death is not related to his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1310 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.312 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 2, 1953 to June 19, 1953. The Veteran died in December 2003 and the appellant is his widow. 1. Entitlement to service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death The appellant submitted her claim to VA in November 2012. In September 2013, she reported that the Veteran had heart trouble, high blood pressure, blood sugar, back surgery, and a pacemaker. She further asserted that the Veteran gave his all for his country and received a Purple Heart. The Veteran’s death certificate indicates that the Veteran died in December 2003 of respiratory failure due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). With her claim for death benefits the appellant submitted a DD-214 regarding a veteran with the same name as her husband. This other veteran served on active duty from February 1950 to June 1953, and received a Purple Heart. Although this other veteran’s DD-214 appears to have the decedent’s social security number, it is clear that this DD-214 was not issued to the appellant’s husband. This other veteran had a different date of birth. The record also contains the correct DD-214 for the appellant’s husband, the Veteran at issue in this decision. The correct DD-214 shows that the Veteran served on active duty for less than four months, from March 2, 1953 to June 19, 1953. The birth date on this DD-214 is consistent with the birth date reported on the appellant’s claim’s form, on the Veteran’s death certificate, and on the Veteran’s service personnel records. The service personnel records indicate that the Veteran did not receive a Purple Heart, that he did not successfully complete basic training, and that he was discharged from service due to an inadequate personality. The death of a Veteran will be considered as having been due to a service-connected disability when the evidence establishes that such disability was either the principal or a contributory cause of death. See 38 U.S.C. § 1310; 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(a). For a service-connected disability to be considered the primary cause of death, it must singly, or with some other condition, be the immediate or underlying cause of death, or be medically related to the cause of death. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(b). In determining whether a service-connected disability contributed to death, it must be shown that it contributed substantially or materially, that it combined to cause death, or that it aided or lent assistance to the production of death. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(c)(1). The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran received treatment during service for influenza and for residuals of a toe fracture. The STRs do not show that the Veteran experienced any chronic respiratory disability. After a thorough review of the record, the Board is forced to conclude that there is no evidence in the record to show that the Veteran’s death was caused by or related to any service-connected disability. First and foremost, the Veteran was not service connected during his lifetime for any of his disabilities. The core requirement for a claim for service connection for cause of death is a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.312(a). Because there was no service-connected disability at the time of the Veteran’s death, or established thereafter, service connection for cause of death is not warranted. The Board has considered the appellant’s assertions that the Veteran’s death was related to service. However, there is no evidence that the appellant has any medical training that would qualify her to opine about the complex medical issue of the etiology of the Veteran’s COPD. Therefore, the law does not permit the Board to assign probative value to these assertions. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)   The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant’s claim and the claim must be denied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. E. Jones, Counsel