Citation Nr: 18145553 Decision Date: 10/29/18 Archive Date: 10/29/18 DOCKET NO. 16-30 410 DATE: October 29, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a back disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has not submitted evidence showing that he has a currently diagnosed back disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a back disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1986 to July 1991 and from December 2003 to February 2005. VA is thankful for his service. The Veteran filed the current claim for a back disorder in April 2013. He had also initiated an appeal for a higher rating for his right knee; however, he limited his June 2016 substantive appeal specifically to his back claim only. Accordingly, the knee claim will not be addressed herein. The Veteran’s service treatment records from his first period of active duty service are unavailable. However, the Veteran has reported in his notice of disagreement that he “never sought treatment” for his back pain while on active duty. The Court has held that in cases where records once in the hands of the government are lost, the Board has a heightened obligation to explain its findings and conclusions and to consider carefully the benefit-of-the-doubt rule where applicable. See O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). The following analysis has been undertaken with this heightened duty in mind. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed.Cir.2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed.Cir.1996) (table). Based on the evidence of record, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted for a back disorder. Service treatment records from the Veteran's December 2003 to February 2005 period of active service are silent for reference to back problems. The first report of back problems was in November 2007, when the Veteran presented with a 2 to 3-year history of low back pain and stiffness. He was running 2 to 3 miles 2 to 3 days per week, and was lifting weights 5 days per week with fairly heavy weights. His prior medical history was not significant for back problems. X rays the Veteran brought with him revealed flattening of lumbar lordosis, but were otherwise normal. It was felt that the Veteran would probably do very well with some mild anti-inflammatories and a good stretching program. His physician felt that running was detrimental to his back, which was currently asymptomatic. There is no medical evidence of record of a current (at any time since the claim was filed in April 2013) back disorder. There is no evidence of record that the Veteran’s back pain rises to the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Veteran has not asserted that his pain interfered with employment or his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life. The existence of a current disease or injury is a cornerstone of a service connection claim. In the absence of a current medical diagnosis of a back disease or injury or evidence of back pain rising to the level of functional impairment of earning capacity, service connection cannot be granted. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143-144 (1992). The Board notes that in June 2016, the Veteran inquired whether he should file a separate claim for neck disability and indicated that he believed his back problems were due to his neck and spine pain in active duty. He provided a STR noting complaints of neck pain and a normal radiological report of the cervical spine. The Veteran is encouraged to file a claim for service connection for a neck disability if   he so desires on an appropriate VA claim form. This decision does not encompass a claim for service connection for a cervical spine or neck disability, as such a claim would need to be adjudicated by the AOJ in the first instance. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Lawson, Counsel