Citation Nr: 18145729 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/29/18 DOCKET NO. 14-34 365 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Parkinson’s disease, to include as secondary to chemical exposure is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease was incurred in or as a result of active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for Parkinson's disease, to include as secondary to chemical exposure have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1979 to June 1995. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. In September 2016, the Veteran testified during a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge seated at the VA Central Office. A transcript is included in the claims file. The Veteran contends that his Parkinson’s disease is the result of his military occupational specialty (MOS) as a food server. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Parkinson’s disease is considered by VA to be a “chronic disease” listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); therefore, the presumptive provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) apply. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). Where the evidence shows a “chronic disease” in service or “continuity of symptoms” after service, the disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service. Where a veteran served 90 days or more of active service, and certain chronic diseases become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year after the date of separation from such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). While the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumptive period, it must be shown, by acceptable lay or medical evidence, that there were characteristic manifestations of the disease to the required degree during that time. Id. In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must also analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while credibility is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (“although interest may affect the credibility of testimony, it does not affect competency to testify”). When considering whether lay evidence is competent, the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a veteran’s particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge, not medical expertise, as it comes to him through his senses. See Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469. Lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology, where the determination is not medical in nature and is capable of lay observation. See Barr, 21 Vet. App. at 303. Lay evidence may establish a diagnosis of a simple medical condition, a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or symptoms that later support a diagnosis by a medical professional. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377. The Veteran’s MOS was a food server. According to the Veteran, his duties included cleaning field equipment and food service equipment, such as ovens, grills, M-2 burners, and immersion heaters. See September 2016 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran contends he was regularly exposed to harsh chemicals and cleaning agents as a result of his MOS, to include chemical agent resistant coating (CARC) paint, oven cleaners, solvents, and heavily concentrated soaps. Id. The Veteran asserts he was not provided with protective equipment when performing these tasks and there is no evidence to counter this assertion. In the absence of such evidence, the Veteran’s statements are presumed credible and consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service. Accordingly, chemical exposure is recognized. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) (2012). The Veteran first noticed symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in 2007, sought treatment in 2009, and was subsequently diagnosed in October 2011. A September 2015 VA clinical record from a VA neurologist noted that the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease may be related to occupational exposures in service In May 2018, the Board sought opinion from an expert Veterans Health Administration (VHA) specialist with respect to the etiology of the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease. The VA neurologist opined in September 2018 that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s Parkinson’s disease was incurred in or as a result of active duty service, to include the claimed in-service chemical exposure. The neurologist noted that he could not verify the Veteran’s exposure to toxins in service, but considered the Veteran’s acknowledged service and history of exposure to chemicals, including solvents. The evidence is at least in equipoise in showing a direct nexus between the Veteran’s chemical exposure in service and his Parkinson’s disease. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for Parkinson’s disease is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. [SIGNATURE ON NEXT PAGE] JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Duthely, Associate Counsel