Citation Nr: 1237467 Decision Date: 11/01/12 Archive Date: 11/09/12 DOCKET NO. 10-25 463 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Chicago, Illinois THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for sexually transmitted disease, to include gonorrhea or pubic lice. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Fields, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1984 to August 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Chicago, Illinois. No hearing was requested. The Veteran also has a Virtual VA paperless claims file, which is a highly secured electronic repository that is used to store and review documents involved in the claims process. There are currently no pertinent documents in the paperless file that are not also in the paper claims file. In March 2010 and April 2010, the Veteran complained of arthritis and low back pain that he believes is related to service, indicating that he had previously filed a claim for disability of the low back or neck in the early 1990s that was denied. The Board notes that service connection for low back pain secondary to strain was denied in an October 1994 rating decision, based on an August 1993 claim. The matter of reopening the previously denied service connection claim for a low back disorder, to include arthritis, has been raised by the record. This issue has not been adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over it, and it is referred to the AOJ for appropriate action. FINDINGS OF FACT The evidence does not establish a currently disability related to in-service treatment for sexually transmitted disease, to include pubic lice or gonorrhea. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection sexually transmitted disease, to include gonorrhea or pubic lice, have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107(b) (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION I. VA's Duties to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations require VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance in substantiating a claim. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a). Proper VCAA notice must inform the claimant of any information and evidence not in the record (1) that is necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) that VA will seek to provide; and (3) that the claimant is expected to provide. Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 186 (2002). These notice requirements apply to all five elements of a service connection claim, including: (1) veteran status; (2) existence of a disability; (3) a connection between the veteran's service and the disability; (4) degree of disability; and (5) effective date of the disability. Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). Proper VCAA notice must be provided to a claimant prior to the initial unfavorable decision on the claim. Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112, 119-20 (2004). In this case, the Veteran was advised in March 2010, prior to the initial unfavorable rating decision, of the evidence and information necessary to substantiate his service connection claims, the responsibilities of the Veteran and VA in obtaining such evidence, and the evidence and information necessary to establish a disability rating and an effective date, in accordance with Dingess/Hartman. Concerning the duty to assist, the Veteran's service treatment records have been obtained and considered. He has not identified or provided any post-service VA or other treatment for the claimed disability. Further, the RO searched the VA records for Chicago and found no treatment for the Veteran. There is also no indication that he receives any disability benefits from the Social Security Administration. The Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim. However, as discussed in detail below, although there was treatment and diagnosis in service for pubic lice and gonorrhea, there is no indication that such conditions were chronic. The Veteran has not claimed current disability or residuals, and there is no evidence of a currently diagnosed sexually transmitted disease or its residuals that may be related to the in-service treatment. As such, the medical evidence of record is sufficient and no VA examination is necessary. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). In the circumstances of this case, a remand would serve no useful purpose, as it would unnecessarily impose additional burdens on VA with no benefit to the Veteran. See Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). VA has satisfied its duties to inform and assist the Veteran at every stage in this case, at least insofar as any errors committed were not harmful to the essential fairness of the proceedings. As such, he will not be prejudiced by a decision on the merits of the claim at this time. II. Analysis Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Where a disease is diagnosed after discharge, service connection may be granted when all of the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred during active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, to establish direct service connection, there must be competent and credible evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304; see also Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, all reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990). Here, the Veteran seeks service connection for a sexually transmitted disease, stating that he was treated for pubic lice and gonorrhea in service. A review of the service treatment records confirms that he was diagnosed and treated for pubic lice in August 1984, and for gonorrhea at his active duty discharge examination in July 1987. As he was separating from service at that time, the Veteran was advised to follow up with VA for the gonorrhea to confirm a cure. There is no indication that either of these conditions were chronic or continued after treatment in service. The Veteran has not identified any post-service treatment or diagnosis of a sexually transmitted disease or residuals, to include during the course of the appeal. He has not claimed current disease or its residuals. The only reported treatment was during his service discharge physical. Although he states that this was in August 1987, which was when he was separated from service, the examination occurred in July 1987. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (stating that service connection may not be granted where there is no current disability); see also Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stating that a prolonged period without medical complaint can be considered, along with other factors, as evidence of whether an injury or a disease was incurred during military service, which resulted in a chronic or persistent disorder). There is also no competent evidence to indicate that any possible current disability may be related to the in-service conditions. The Veteran is not competent to offer an opinion as to the causation of a sexually transmitted disease or residuals, to include whether it is related to the conditions for which he was treated during service. Rather, this requires specialized knowledge, training, or experience due to the complex nature of the genitourinary system. See Barr, 21 Vet. App. at 308; Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In summary, the evidence of record does not establish a currently disability related to in-service treatment for sexually transmitted disease, to include pubic lice or gonorrhea. As the preponderance of the evidence is against service connection, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable and the claim must be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. ORDER Service connection for sexually transmitted disease, to include gonorrhea or pubic lice, is denied. ____________________________________________ THOMAS J. DANNAHER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs