Joseph M. Falzone appeals a September 23, 1993, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) not to reopen a claim for service connection for pes planus. Joseph M. Falzone, BVA 93-_(Sept. 23, 1993); Record (R.) at 3-8. The Court notes that the archive/citation number provided by the Secretary in the Record on Appeal refers to a BVA decision dated September 23, 1992, instead of 1993. The Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). For the reasons set forth below, the Court vacates the September 1993 decision of the BVA and remands the case for readjudication consistent with this opinion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The appellant served on active duty in the United States Army from November 9, 1942, to October 28, 1945. R. at 13; Supplemental (Suppl.) R. at 1. The appellant’s entrance
On March 12, 1951, the appellant filed an application with a YA regional office (RO) seeking service connection for painful flat feet. R. at 42. On June 25, 1951, the RO noted that the appellant had “received treatment in service for claimed disabilities but physical examination at discharge shows no residuals.” R. at 48. The RO consequently denied service connection, stating in a rating sheet that “[i]n the absence of evidence of continuity of claimed disabilities and of medical evidence of the veteran’s present condition, reasonable probability of a valid claim is not shown.” Ibid. A June 1951 notification letter from the RO to the appellant included boilerplate language indicating that “[b]efore compensation payments can be authorized, it is necessary that the evidence in file show a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service in line of duty and disabling to a degree of 10% or more.” R. at 49. Despite the boilerplate language, however, in the same notification letter to the appellant, the RO indicated that “[s]ervice connection has NOT been established for claimed flat feet ... as [this] condition [was] not shown at time of last examination.” Ibid. Therefore, based on the reasons given in the rating sheet and in the non-boilerplate portions of the notification letter, the Court concludes that the determinative issue involved in the June 1951 RO’s denial was the lack of evidence of continuity of symptomatology and the presence of a disability on the most recent examination, i.e., the appellant’s 1945 separation examination.
On May 22, 1991, the appellant filed an application with the RO, seeking service connection for severe flat feet. R. at 52. In a letter to the RO, the appellant wrote that his feet were “ruined” because of his duties involving lifting bombs into the bomb bays of various aircraft. R. at 56. He also wrote that he attributed the necessity for surgery on varicose veins to his foot condition. R. at 57. After having obtained the medical records pertaining to the appellant’s varicose vein-related surgery, on July 19, 1991, the RO did not reopen the service connection claim for pes planus. R. at 68. According to an October 29, 1991, Statement of the Case, the reason for the denial was that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence showing that his pes planus condition, which had existed prior to service, was permanently aggravated during service beyond the normal progression of the condition. R. at 88. Thus, by 1991, the RO’s adjudication of the appellant’s claim had come to center on the issue of aggravation.
The appellant appeared at a personal hearing before the RO on December 19,1991. R. at 91-106. At the hearing, the appellant testified that he had never received notice of the RO’s June 1951 denial. R. at 92. On January 14, 1992, the hearing officer continued the RO’s decision not to reopen the claim. R. at 110. In support of that determination, the hearing officer .noted that the appellant’s in-service complaints and treatment were “considered the expected exacerbation of his preexisting flat-foot condition.” Ibid.
On September 23, 1992, the Board remanded for the conduct of an examination by a VA orthopedist. R. at 157. The examiner was directed to opine as to the nature of the appellant’s pes planus and the degree of severity. Ibid. A December 1992 VA orthopedic examination report diagnosed the appellant with bilateral semirigid pronated/valgus feet, pes planus, left worse than right, and with degenerative arthritis of the feet. R. at 164. On February 19, 1993, the RO continued the denial. R. at 168. On September 23,1993, the Board did not reopen the appellant’s service connection claim for pes planus. Falzone, BVA 93-_, at 5; R. at 7.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Notice of June 1951 RO Rating Action
The appellant’s claim for service connection for pes planus was previously denied
B. Reopening of Claim
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5108, the Secretary must reopen a previously and finally disallowed claim when “new and material evidence” is presented or secured with respect to that claim. See Stanton v. Brown,
A veteran is entitled to service connection for a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (1994). Regarding aggravation of a preexisting injury or disease, title 38 of the United States Code provides as follows:
A preexisting injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active military, naval, or air service, where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of the disease.
38 U.S.C. § 1153; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(a)-(b) (1994). The presumption of aggravation is applicable only if the preser-vice disability underwent an increase in severity during service. Hunt v. Derwinski,
The record contains new and material evidence. The appellant has stated in letters to VA and in testimony before an RO hearing officer that he has had painful feet ever since service. The evidence submitted in connection with the RO’s June 1951 rating decision consisted of the appellant’s service medical records and his application to the RO for service connection for painful flat feet. The paucity of evidence submitted in connection with the 1951 RO adjudication is underscored by the notation on the June 1951 rating sheet that the appellant had not then responded to a request for additional evidence. R. at 48. Since the appellant had not produced any statements regarding his symptoms in connection with the June 1951 RO rating action, his statements submitted in connection with the September 1993 BVA decision were new. Under the facts of this case, the appellant’s new statements regarding the continuity of symptomatology (pain) in connection with his feet are competent because they relate to an observable condition. The appellant’s pes planus is the type of condition that lends itself to observation by a lay witness. See also Harvey v. Brown,
In Stanton,
Our analysis is consistent with the Court’s caselaw regarding the type of evidence required to satisfy the evidentiary prerequisites in the context of the VA adjudication process. In Moray v. Brown,
In its September 1993 decision, focusing on the evidence generated subsequent to the June 1951 RO rating decision, the Board stated: “The additional evidence shows nothing more than the present degree of disability of his pes planus. It does not provide any indication that his pes planus underwent an increase in severity during his wartime service.” Falzone, BVA 93-_, at 4; R. at 6. Thus, the Board assumed that the June 1951 RO rating decision had encompassed the issue of aggravation and consequently proceeded to adjudicate the appellant’s claim as though the issue were whether the appellant had submitted new and material evidence on the question of in-service aggravation, partic
2. De Facto Reopening
However, the Board in effect reopened the appellant’s claim. Although the language of the Board’s decision was couched in terms of a “new and material evidence” analysis,
when the action of the Board is examined for what it did “in fact,” it is clear that the claim was to all intents and purposes reopened and readjudicated. The new evidence was considered in context with all the old evidence and, just as important, the old evidence was reexamined in light of the new evidence.
Guimond v. Brown,
C. Review Under “Clearly Erroneous” Standard
Once a claim has been correctly reopened, the Court reviews the Board’s findings with respect to such reopening under the “clearly erroneous” standard of review. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4); Rightly v. Brown,
The appellant’s entrance examination report indicated that his pes planus was asymptomatic at that time. R. at 17. However, during service, the appellant complained on numerous occasions of painful feet, and he was treated for those complaints. R. at 21-24, 26-27, 30, 35-37. Indeed, in October 1943, the appellant’s condition was characterized as third degree pes planus. R. at 24. If these symptoms indicate an increase in severity, then the presumption of aggravation would have attached. See Townsend v. Derwinski,
However, the record is not adequately developed on the issue of an increase in severity since the Board merely rejected the reports of complaints during service as being symptomatic of a temporary increase in severity. Falzone, BVA 93-_, at 5; R. at 7. This statement by the Board was eonclusory. Significantly, the Board did not address the October 1943 notation that appears to refer to a more severe form of pes planus (third degree). The Court is unable to determine whether this in fact constitutes an increase in the severity of the appellant’s disability or indicates a temporary worsening of symptoms. See Htint,
The inadequacy of the record is heightened by the inadequacy of the December 1992 VA orthopedic examination. See Ardison v. Brown,
D. Secretary’s Argument Regarding Lack of Well-Grounded Claim
We note the Secretary’s argument in his brief to the Court that the appellant’s claim was not well grounded because the appellant lacks a medical statement finking his current pes planus condition (R. at 164) with his in-service condition. First, the correct issue is whether the appellant submitted new and material evidence to reopen the claim. See also Gobber v. Derwinski,
Additionally, the record in this case also discloses that the appellant’s condition changed from an asymptomatic one at entrance to a condition characterized as third degree pes planus during service. R. at 24. Furthermore, the appellant currently has been diagnosed with pes planus in December 1992. R. at 164. Therefore, the appellant’s statements regarding pain, the in-service notation indicating a worsening of his pes pla-nus, and the confirmed existence of the condition on the December 1992 VA examination are sufficient to render the appellant’s claim well grounded.
E. Claim for Secondary Service Connection for Varicose Veins
We note, however, that the Board’s failure to adjudicate a claim for secondary service connection for varicose veins as being-related to the pes planus is harmless error. Although the Board is obligated to liberally construe arguments raised during the claims adjudication process, here there was no “claim” to adjudicate. Unlike the appellant’s claim for service connection for pes planus on the basis of aggravation, the appellant’s argument that his varicose veins and resulting surgery are related to pes planus does require medical knowledge. Thus, the appellant did not submit a well-grounded claim for service connection for varicose veins.
F. Non-Service-Connected Pension
Finally, we note that the appellant’s case presents a possible claim for a non-serviee-conneeted pension. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a) (1994); Stanton, 5 Vet.App. at 571; Ferraro v. Derwinski,
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, upon consideration of the record, the appellant’s brief, and the Secretary’s brief, the Court VACATES the September 1993 BVA decision and REMANDS the ease for readjudication consistent with this opinion.