UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O

. 99-53

C H A RLES J. H A R R IS , A PP EL L ANT ,

V

.
T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE

.

Be fore KRAMER, HOL DAWAY, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. O R D E R

I n a sing le-judg e memora n d um decision dated F ebrua ry 15, 2000, the Court aff

irmed an October 1998 decision of the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA) that determined that the
a ppe lla nt' s c la ims fo r s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n f or he mor rh oid s and

a ba c k d isa

bil ity we re no t w e ll g rounded. O n Marc h 6, 2000, the Court rec eive d a m otion for re consideration and an alter native motion for a pane l decision. The Court will g rant the moti on for a panel de cision and issue this order to repla ce the Fe bruar

y 2000 memorandum de cision. The Court has jurisdiction over the case under 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). F or the re asons that follow, the Court will aff irm the dec ision of the Boa rd.

The a ppellant serve d in the U.S. Army Reserve on active duty for training from Aug ust 15 to Aug ust 29, 1953; from Aug ust 1 to August 15, 1954; from Aug ust 7 to August 21, 1955; and f rom Au g us t 4 t o A ugus t 19 , 1 95 6. Hi s se rv ic e me dic a l re c or ds we re no t ava ila ble , p re su ma

bly be c a us e they wer e lost in the 1973 fire at the National Personne l Records Center

.
P o s t s e r v i c e m e d i c a l r e c o r d s r e p o rt e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l an t w a s i n v o l v e d i n ana uto mob ile
acc ident in Febr

uary 1962 and injured his bac k. One medic al re p o rt n o t ed that he did not have a history of any other prior

injuries. I n Aug ust 1962, the appellant was tre ated f or re ctal blee ding. T he medical r eport indicated t hat t he appe llant had had r ecta l bleeding for a bout thirty

day s and that he had had a previous episode while servingat For t Gordon, Ge org ia, in 1955.

I n November

1994, the appe llant filed an application for service connec tion for a back injury
and fo r he mor

rh oid s. I n J anu ary

19 96 , a VAre g ion a l of

fi c e (V AR O) de nie d th e a pp e lla nt' s c la ims

. The appellant timely appea led the dec ision to t he B VA. The appellant testified be fore a traveling section of the B oard that he had sustained a n injury to his back and ha d suffe red f rom rec tal bleeding while servingat For

t Gordon in 1954, and, at some point, submi tted an " IN D IV ID U A L S IC K SL IP " verify ing that he was sick on Aug ust 11, 1954. He stated that he wa s diag nosed at that time with a str a i n e d b a c k an d w i t h b l o o dy

h e m o r r h o i d s

. H e a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e h a d

h a d t h e s e p r ob le ms con ti n u a ll y

s in c e s e r

v ic e

. A t t

h e h e ar in g , th e a

p p e ll an t s u

b mi tt e d s e v e r a l s tate me n ts f

r om2

individuals who had serve d with him at Fort Gordon. T hese state ments ref lected that the appellant ha d b e e n s e nt t o th e inf

ir mary fo r t re a tme nt f

or a ba c k in jur y and fo r h e mor

rh oid s. On appeal t o the BVA, t he Board denied the appellant' s claims as not well g rounded. The Boa rd found that ther e wa s no medical evidence of a nexus betwee n the appe llant's ba ck injury or re c ta l bl e e din g in t

he 19 50 s and

his c ur re nt a lle g a tio ns of

a ba c k d isa bil ity and he mor rh oid s.

" [A] per so n who su

bmi ts a cla im f

or be ne fi ts u

nd e r a law a dmi nis te re d b y

the Se c re tary

sh a ll have the burden of

submitt ing e vidence sufficie nt to justify a belief by a fair and impartial indivi dual that th e c la im i s we ll g ro un de d. " 38 U. S.C. § 510 7( a ). A we ll- g ro un de d cla im is "a pla us ibl e c la im, one which is mer it o ri o u s o n its own or capa ble of substantiation. Such a c laim need not be
con clu si ve but on ly po ss ib le to sat is fy th e in it ial bu rden of [ sect io n 5 10 7(a) ] ." Murphy v . Derwinski , 1 V e t.A pp . 7 8, 81 (1 99 0) . Fo r a

se rv ic e -c on ne c tio n c la im t o b e we ll g ro un de d, the re g e ne ra lly mus t be (1) medical e vidence of a c urre nt disabilit y ; (2) medic al evidenc e, or in c erta in circumstanc es lay evidenc e, of in-se rvice incurre nce or ag g ravation of a disease or injury ; and (3) me dical evide nce of a nexus betwee n the asser ted in-ser vice injury or disease a

nd the cur

rent disability

. See Caluza v. Br own , 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995), aff' d per curiam , 7 8 F .3 d 6 04 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 6) (t a ble ); se e als o El k ins v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 209, 213 ( 1999) (e n banc) (citing Cal uz a , su pr a , and E

pps v. Gobe r , 12 6 F .3 d 1 46 4, 14 68 (F e d. Cir

. 19 97 ) (e xpre ssl y a do pti ng de fi nit ion of we ll- g ro un de d c la im s e t f or th in Cal uz a , su

pra )). In addition, when a c laim is based on a pe riod of act i v e d u t y fo r t raining (38 U.S.C. § 101(22)), ther e must be evide nce that t h e individual concer ned died or

beca me disabled during the per iod of ac tive duty for tra ining a s a re sult of a disease or injury incurre d or ag g ravated in the line of duty

. See 38 U. S.C. §§ 10 1( 2) , 1 01 (2 4) ; 11 10 ; Me rc ad o- Ma rti ne z v. W est , 11 Vet.App. 415, 419 (1998). I n the absence of such evidence, the period of active duty for tra ining would not qualify as "a ctive milit ary , naval, or air se rvice " a nd the claimant would not ac hieve ve tera n status fo r pur po se s of that cla im. 38 U. S.C. § 1 01 (2 4) ; see 38 U. S.C. § 1 01 (2 ), 11 10 ; Me rc ad o- Ma rti ne z, supra. The credibility of t he evidence presente d in support of a c laim is ge nera lly presumed w hen deter mining whe ther it is well g rounded. See E lkins , 12 Vet.App. at 219 (citing Ro bin e ttev . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 69, 75- 76 (1995)) . The de termination whethe r a claim is w ell g rounded is subject to de novo revie w by

this Court. Se e Ro bin e tte , 8 Vet.App. at 74. Assuming that the a

ppellant injured his bac k and suff ere d fr o m re ct al bl eedingwhile on a pe ri od of a c tiv e du ty fo r tr a ini ng , he ha s not sub mit te d an y me dic a l evi de nc e that he w a s disabled during his period of a ctive duty for tra ining a s a result of any such injury or sy mptoms. Nor has he submitt ed any

medical e vidence of his curr en t conditions. The most rece nt medical evide nce of
rec ord is 1962. Also, there is no medic al evidence l i n k i n g the appe llant's a lleg ed cur rent ba ck condition or h em o rrhoids t o a bac k injury and re ctal blee ding in se rvice . Acc ording ly , the Court holds, on de novo revie w, that the appellant ha s not submit ted a we ll-g rounded c laim beca use there is neither medica l e vidence of a ne x us betwee n service and any prese nt disabilit y

that he may

have ( see Epps, Elk

ins, Robinette, and Cal uz a , a ll su pra ) , n o r e v id e n c e o f

v e te r ans tatu s ( i. e

. , e v id ence that he became disabled during a period of active duty for tra ining) , se e Me rc ad o- Ma rti ne z, su pr a ).
Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g and

the re c or d o n a

pp e a l, i t is3

ORDERED that the appe llant's moti on for reconsider ation or a pa nel dec ision is accepte d for filing on the date r ece ived. I t is further

ORDERED that th e ap p el l ant' s motion for a pane l decision is gr anted. The Fe bruar y 15, 2000, memorandum de cision, which re lied upon Lar ua n v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 80 (1998), overruled by D'A mi c o v . W

est , __ F.3d __, No. 99-7110 (Fed. Ci r. Apr. 7, 2000), is withdrawn a nd this order is issued in it s stead. The October 1998 Boa

rd dec ision is AFFI RMED.

DA TE D: May

19 , 2 00 0 PER CU RI AM

.