Citation Nr: 18145909 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-37 751 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a respiratory lung disability is denied. Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder is denied. REMANDED Service connection for diabetes mellitus due to herbicide exposure, to include Agent Orange, is remanded. Service connection for neuropathy in both legs and feet due to herbicide exposure, to include Agent Orange, is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for vertigo is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of a respiratory lung disability. 2. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a respiratory lung disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 2. The criteria for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the United States Navy from July 1966 to April 1970. The matters are on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Entitlement to service connection requires: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, the Board has no reason to doubt the credibility of his statements. When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). 1. Service connection for a respiratory lung disability The Veteran contends that he has a respiratory lung disability due to exposure to chemicals that were required by his military occupational specialty as an aircraft mechanic. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, thus satisfying Shedden element (1). The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a respiratory lung disorder and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. at 294; McClain, 21 Vet. App. at 321; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent regarding a respiratory lung disorder. Medical records from the Veteran’s private physicians showed no complaints of or treatment for a respiratory lung disorder. Further, the Veteran’s pulmonary health was consistently found to be normal when he was examined during general medical assessments by his various private physicians. While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of a respiratory lung disorder, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence, and absent any competent evidence of a current disability, service connection is denied. 2. Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) The Veteran contends that he has PTSD due to an incident in November 1965. Again, the question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, thus satisfying Shedden element (1). The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of PTSD and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton, supra; Romanowsky, supra; McClain, supra; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any PTSD complaints, diagnosis, or treatment. Private physician records are also silent on PTSD complaints, diagnosis, or treatment. A July 2016 letter from Dr. M.K. stated that she had seen the Veteran for the past seven years, and that he reported having PTSD. However, this is insufficient medical evidence as Dr. M.K.’s records showed that she had not diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD. Rather, in the letter, she was reiterating what the Veteran had reported to her and observed that he was anxious when he discussed his naval service experience. Therefore, this opinion is not probative nor does it qualify as a diagnosis for PTSD. While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of PTSD, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau, supra. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence, and absent any competent evidence of a current disability, service connection is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connections for diabetes mellitus and for neuropathy in both legs and feet (bilateral lower extremity neuropathy), both claims due to herbicide exposure, to include Agent Orange, is remanded. In his July 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicides, including Agent Orange, multiple times throughout his naval service. He specifically discussed having to clean transient air craft that were en route to the United States from Vietnam, while stationed at Roosevelt Rose Naval Station in Puerto Rico. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) notes that the Veteran’s service connection claims for diabetes mellitus and for bilateral lower extremity neuropathy due to herbicide exposure were denied by the regional office (RO) because the Veteran had not served in Vietnam. As stated above, the Veteran is not contending that this is the cause of his herbicide exposure. On remand, the RO should contact all appropriate sources to determine whether air craft with herbicide residue were sent to Roosevelt Rose Naval Station as alleged by the Veteran. If there is insufficient information to verify exposure to herbicides, including Agent Orange, the RO must issue a formal finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran in this matter. 2. Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for vertigo is remanded. The Veteran was last examined for his service-connected vertigo in March 2015. The medical evidence of record may not otherwise adequately describe the current severity of the Veteran’s condition. Therefore, this matter must be remanded for another VA examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to obtain from the appropriate sources verification of the Veteran’s claim on his exposure to herbicides during his naval service, specifically while stationed at Roosevelt Rose Naval Station in Puerto Rico. If there is insufficient information to verify exposure to herbicides, the RO must issue a formal finding outlining the steps taken to assist the Veteran. The Veteran should be notified of VA’s inability to verify the Veteran’s exposure to herbicides in service. If herbicide exposure is verified, undertake all necessary development regarding the Veteran’s claims of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus and for bilateral lower extremity neuropathy, due to exposure to herbicides, including obtaining a medical opinion on the issue of nexus to service. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to evaluate the current severity of his vertigo. All testing necessary to evaluate this disorder must be undertaken. (Continued on next page) 3. Readjudicate the appeal. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Lee, Associate Counsel