## Facts

- A World War II veteran alleged he contracted spinal meningitis in service and also suffered “frozen feet” (cold injury) during service.
- In 1980, he sought VA service connection for spinal meningitis; the VA Regional Office denied the claim.
- His service medical records were unavailable due to destruction in a records fire; a morning report showed hospitalization but did not state a diagnosis.
- He submitted lay affidavits from fellow servicemembers stating he was treated for spinal meningitis in service; the agency found this insufficient to grant service connection, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) affirmed.
- He attempted to reopen the meningitis claim in 1986 (denied) and again in 1988; in 1988 he also claimed service connection for residuals of frozen feet.
- The evidence he submitted focused on establishing in-service treatment and did not identify or support a current disability or residuals from meningitis or frozen feet.
- In 1990, the BVA denied reopening the meningitis claim for lack of new and material evidence and denied service connection for residuals of frozen feet.

## Issues

1. Whether the veteran submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen a previously denied claim for service connection for spinal meningitis.
2. Whether service connection may be granted for spinal meningitis or residuals of frozen feet when the record lacks competent evidence of a current disability attributable to those conditions.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the BVA.
- It held the veteran had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen the spinal meningitis claim.
- It held that, absent proof of a present disability, the service-connection claims for spinal meningitis and frozen feet residuals failed.

## Legal Principles

- Service connection requires evidence of a current disability resulting from in-service disease or injury.
- In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim for service-connected compensation.
- Evidence that addresses only past in-service treatment, without evidence tending to show current residuals or disability, is not material to reopen a finally denied claim.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the denial of reopening and service connection because the veteran’s submissions did not establish a present disability related to spinal meningitis or frozen feet, and evidence limited to alleged in-service treatment did not constitute new and material evidence.


Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992)