Citation Nr: 0709513 Decision Date: 04/02/07 Archive Date: 04/16/07 DOCKET NO. 04-26 167 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for chronic prostatitis. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Katz, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1964 to January 1966. This case comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2003 rating decision. FINDING OF FACT The veteran does not have chronic prostatitis that was present in service or is otherwise related to active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Chronic prostatitis was not incurred in or aggravated by the veteran's active duty service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2006). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION I. Duties to Notify and Assist VA is required to notify the veteran of: (1) the information and evidence needed to substantiate and complete his claim, (2) what part of that evidence he is responsible for providing, (3) what part of that evidence VA will attempt to obtain for him, and (4) the need to send the RO any additional evidence that pertains to his claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. In partial compliance with the duty to notify, the RO issued the veteran a letter in April 2003 which outlined all but the last element of the duty to notify. The veteran has not been prejudiced by lack of notification; however, as he was issued a statement of the case in May 2004 which contained the entire language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 and an additional development letter in March 2004 which contained the last element of the duty to notify. VA also has a duty to assist claimants in obtaining evidence needed to substantiate a claim. Here, the RO obtained the veteran's service medical records and private medical records indicated by the veteran to be relevant to his claim. Some service medical records indicated by the veteran to be present have been sought appropriately by the RO but were not located. No VA examination is required in this case because the veteran has submitted no medical evidence that his current condition is related to service or medical evidence of any occurrence in service. The lay statement suggesting the veteran saw a doctor for at least three years after separation as well as the veteran's testimony of continuous treatment since the initial onset in service are not competent evidence of a diagnosis, nor are they competent evidence of a nexus between the claimed disability and his service. Although lay evidence is acceptable to prove the occurrence of an injury during active duty or symptomatology over a period of time when such symptomatology is within the purview of or may be readily recognized by lay persons, lay testimony is not competent to prove a matter requiring medical expertise, such as an opinion as to diagnosis or medical causation. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-495 (1992). There does not appear to be any other evidence, VA or private, relevant to the claim that the RO has failed to attempt to obtain at this time. The veteran has been provided with every opportunity to submit evidence and argument in support of his claim and to respond to VA notices. The veteran has not been prejudiced by inadequate or untimely notice and any defect with respect to the notice requirement in this case was harmless error. The evidence and information of record, in its totality, provides the necessary information to decide the case at this time. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Any additional development efforts would serve no useful purpose. See Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). The appellant has been provided the appropriate notice and assistance prior to the claim being adjudicated by the Board and prior to the last adjudication by the RO. Therefore, the veteran is not prejudiced by the Board's adjudication of his claim at this time. See Overton v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 427 (2006). II. Claim for Entitlement to Service Connection The veteran claims that his chronic prostatitis condition initially began two weeks prior to separation from service in January 8, 1966 (see testimony at Travel Board hearing before the undersigned in July 2006). Service connection will be granted if the veteran suffers from a disability resulting from an injury suffered or disease contracted in service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection, there must be: 1) a medical diagnosis of a current disability; 2) medical or, in certain cases, lay evidence of in-service occurrence of a disease or injury; and 3) medical evidence of a nexus between an in-service injury or disease and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Later manifestations of a disease that is considered to be chronic in nature during service may also be service-connected. For the showing of chronic disease in service, there must be a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. If chronicity in service is not established, evidence of continuity of symptoms after discharge is required to support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). In adjudicating a claim, the Board determines whether 1) the weight of the evidence supports the claim or 2) the weight of the positive evidence in favor of the claim is in relative balance with the weight of the negative evidence against the claim. The appellant prevails in either of those situations. However, if the weight of the evidence is against the appellant's claim, the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The veteran's service medical records include a December 10, 1965 separation examination at which time the veteran reported no prostate or genitourinary problems nor, upon examination, was anything found to be other than normal with regards to the veteran's genitourinary system. The veteran testified at the Travel Board hearing before the undersigned in July 2006 that two weeks prior to separation he went to the hospital at Fort Knox where he was treated for a prostate infection. Records were sought by the RO from Fort Knox; however, none were located according to a November 2003 response from the National Personnel Records Center. Therefore, while the veteran claims that the prostate condition's onset was two weeks prior to separation and this could have occurred after the separation examination, since no records were found of any treatment for such a condition, the veteran's claim cannot be corroborated by contemporaneous records and is unpersuasive. The veteran testified that after the initial onset during service, he has had continuous symptoms of the same condition. A lay statement from the veteran's roommate from 1967 through 1971 also stated that he was seen by a doctor at least annually for treatment for a prostate condition. There are no medical records for this period of time and the first medical record regarding this condition is a private treatment records from August 1981. Thereafter, the veteran's private treatment records indicate continuous treatment for a prostate condition from August 1981 through June 2002. At the time of the veteran's initial examination in 1981, he did state that he had a history of problems with the prostate but did not specify when onset of the condition had occurred and nowhere in the medical records does the physician opine that the veteran's condition is related to service or dates back to the veteran's time in service. As a result of the foregoing, there is no medical evidence that the veteran had initial onset of the condition while in service and no medical evidence of the condition existing until years after separation. While the veteran has testified that onset occurred during service, the weight of the medical evidence is against such a determination. While the veteran may be of the opinion that his prostatitis is related to his service, as a lay person, he is not competent to render a medical diagnosis or etiological opinion and there has been no competent medical evidence submitted to substantiate his claim. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494 (1992). For the reasons discussed above, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the veteran currently does not have chronic prostatitis as a result of service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b). ORDER Entitlement to service connection for chronic prostatitis is denied. ____________________________________________ C. W. SYMANSKI Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs