Citation Nr: 18145275 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/26/18 DOCKET NO. 15-14 319 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma is denied. Entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for muscle pain and weakness is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for joint pain and weakness is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for cholecystectomy is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for colitis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for migraines is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type I, is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of glaucoma. 2. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for glaucoma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2018). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.309 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1988 to November 1991. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the Board in August 2016, and a transcript of the hearing is of record. Service Connection In seeking VA disability compensation, a veteran generally seeks to establish that a current disability results from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. “Service connection” basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection can also be established through application of statutory presumptions, including for chronic diseases, like arthritis, that become manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation of service or when there is continuity of symptomology since separation of service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Board also notes that the Veteran claimed that his condition was due to Gulf War syndrome. As discussed below, however, the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, or an infectious disease, and, therefore, the presumptions for conditions related to service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations, as pertains to these specific disorders, are not applicable. 38 C.F.R. § 3.317. 1. Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for glaucoma. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran is not entitled to service connection. The Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the Board in August 2016. He indicated that he was not sure whether or not he had been diagnosed with glaucoma. See Transcript. The Veteran’s treatment records are silent for a current diagnosis of glaucoma or a diagnosis during the pendency of the appeal. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran has not manifested a diagnosis of glaucoma during the pendency of the appeal. The Veteran’s treatment records are silent for a diagnosis of glaucoma, and the Veteran has even admitted that he is not sure if he has a glaucoma diagnosis. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997). As such without a current diagnosis or a diagnosis during the pendency of the appeal, the Veteran lacks the evidence necessary to substantiate his claim for service connection. Here, the weight of the probative evidence of record simply fails to demonstrate that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for glaucoma. Therefore, the evidence in this case is not so evenly balanced so as to allow application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule as required by law and VA regulations. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, entitlement to service connection for glaucoma is denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome. The weight of the evidence indicates that he is not entitled to service connection. The Veteran testified at a personal hearing before the Board in August 2016. He indicated that he had begun to manifest fatigue in the 1990s, and that he had sought treatment for the condition thereafter. He conceded, however, that his physicians had not diagnosed his claimed fatigue. See Transcript. The Veteran’s treatment records are silent for a current diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome or a diagnosis during the pendency of the appeal. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in August 2014, and the examiner found that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran has not manifested a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome during the pendency of the appeal. A VA examination indicated that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. The Board finds this opinion persuasive and affords it great weight, because it is based on sufficient facts and data applied to reliable principles and methods. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Additionally, the Veteran’s treatment records are silent for a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See Degmetich. As such, without a current diagnosis or a diagnosis during the pendency of the appeal, the Veteran lacks the evidence necessary to substantiate his claim for service connection. Here, the weight of the probative evidence of record simply fails to demonstrate that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome. Therefore, the evidence in this case is not so evenly balanced so as to allow application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule as required by law and VA regulations. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for muscle pain and weakness and joint pain and weakness are remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for muscle pain and weakness and joint pain and weakness. The Veteran has provided competent reports of these symptoms; see Jandreau v Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); but these symptoms have not been associated with an underlying diagnosis. Fibromyalgia, however, is potentially applicable to a claim for service connection based on an undiagnosed illness that manifested musculoskeletal pain. Stankevich v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 470 (2006). Therefore, this matter must be remanded in order to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to determine whether or not a diagnosis of fibromyalgia is appropriate in light of the Veteran’s unexplained muscle pain and weakness and joint pain and weakness. 2. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea, cholecystectomy, colitis, GERD, and migraines are remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for sleep apnea, cholecystectomy, colitis, GERD, and migraines. The Veteran’s treatment records indicate that he has been diagnosed with these conditions, and he has been provided VA examinations evaluating these conditions. Unfortunately, the examinations of record only indicate whether or not the Veteran’s conditions were the result of his service in the Southwest Asia Theatre of Operations. Nevertheless, this is insufficient, because they do not further describe the nature and etiology of these conditions in sufficient detail to rule out other possible theories of service connection. Once VA undertakes to provide the Veteran with a VA examination, VA must provide the Veteran with an adequate one. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Therefore, these matters must be remanded for further development. 3. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, type I, is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for diabetes, because his diabetes is secondary to the gastrointestinal conditions for which he is also seeking service connection. Therefore, this matter is inextricably intertwined with the above issues, and it must be remanded as well. Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Updated, pertinent treatment records should be obtained and added to the claims file. 2. Following completion of the above, arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed muscle pain/weakness and joint pain/weakness. The examiner should address the following: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran has a diagnosis of fibromyalgia? Why or why not? (b.) What is the medical significance, if any, of the Veteran’s reports of muscle pain and weakness and joint pain and weakness? Why? (c.) If the Veteran has a diagnosis of fibromyalgia, then is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that a medical nexus exists between a current diagnosis of fibromyalgia and an in-service incurrence to include service in the Southwest Asia Theatre of Operations? Why or why not? (d.) If the Veteran’s symptoms are not due to a diagnosed disorder, the examiner should so state. 3. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed sleep apnea. 4. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed cholecystectomy. 5. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed colitis. 6. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed GERD. (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 7. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s claimed migraine headaches. BARBARA B. COPELAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David R. Seaton, Associate Counsel