Citation Nr: 18145985 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-61 504 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right leg amputation below the knee is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. Currently diagnosed hypertension was not incurred in or caused by active service. 2. Currently diagnosed right leg amputation below the knee was not incurred in or caused by active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for right leg amputation below the knee have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service with the United States Army from November 1954 to December 1954. This matter comes on appeal before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2015 rating decision. In August 2018 the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for hypertension and right leg amputation below the knee The question for the Board is whether the Veteran’s currently diagnosed hypertension or right leg disabilities began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s hypertension or right leg below the knee amputation began during service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Veteran generally contends the right leg amputation is either the result of an injury sustained during service when a tractor rolled over on him and burned his leg or is the result of exposure to chemicals while in service, which in turn caused cancer. He contends that the hypertension is either related to service or caused by the right leg amputation. In an October 2014 statement, the Veteran stated that he has dealt with considerable leg problems through the years and in 2003, he developed cancer in the same leg which had to be amputated below the knee. Service treatment records and military personnel records were at least partially destroyed in a fire that occurred at the NPRC archives in July 1973, however, all available reconstructed personnel records were associated with the Veteran’s claims file in February 2015. Given that complete service treatment records have been lost, the Board has considered the “heightened duty” to assist Veteran in the development of the case, to explain its findings and conclusions, and to carefully consider the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. See O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365 (1991). The Board finds that a medical opinion with respect to the claims is not needed because the competent evidence does not establish that the Veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Within the service treatment and personnel records reconstructed and associated with the claims file includes a hospital admission card. Upon further development by the RO, a Surgeon’s General Office, Department of the Army, report for the year 1954 shows the Veteran was hospitalized for a psychoneurotic disorder, anxiety reaction in December 1954 at Fort Jackson, Columbia, South Carolina. The record indicates that the Veteran was discharged based on psychoneurotic disorders with no separation pay or line of duty determination. The available records do not show any references to hypertension or chemical exposure. Private treatment records dated October 2003 show the Veteran had a history significant for hypertension and a chronic wound of his right leg associated with a burn present for the past 50 years. The Veteran had undergone a biopsy of his right leg which showed some significantly abnormal tissue, and as a result, the Veteran had been referred for amputation. A private treatment note dated July 2014 shows the Veteran had active problems of benign essential hypertension, encounter for screening for malignant neoplasm of the colon, elevated prostate specific antigen, and right leg amputation below the knee. An October 2015 private medical opinion states that during service, the Veteran was exposed to certain chemicals and injuries which “may have” lead to his right below the knee amputation. The private physician then opined that it was as likely as not that exposure to chemicals and his injuries while he was on active duty resulted in eventual cancer and the subsequent removal of his leg. The Board finds that the weight of the evidence does not show that symptoms of hypertension shown in service or continuous since service separation or that the hypertension is otherwise related to service. The earliest notation of hypertension is within private treatment records in 2003 showing a diagnosis of hypertension. While service treatment records were only partially reconstructed in this case, the Veteran has not contended continuous symptoms of hypertension since service separation. There is no competent evidence of record that relates the hypertension to service. Because the Veteran did not serve for 90 days, the chronic disease presumption for hypertension is not applicable. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. While the Veteran may contend hypertension is related to service, the etiology of hypertension is outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person because it involves complex medical issues that go beyond a simple and immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board also finds the weight of the evidence does not show that the right leg disability was incurred in or is otherwise related to service. as due to exposure to chemicals. The reconstructed service treatment records include a report of hospitalization from December 1954 that related to a psychoneurotic disorder and the Veteran was discharged based on psychoneurotic disorders with no separation pay or line of duty. The report did not include any other hospitalizations or references to a right leg injury or chemical exposure. The Board finds that information from such official sources as the Surgeon’s General Office, Department of the Army, outweighs the Veteran’s own assertions of injury or chemical exposure made for compensation purposes. The Board attaches little probative value to the September 2015 private opinion that related the Veteran’s right leg disability to chemical exposure during service because the examiner did not provide an adequate rationale, indicate what records provided the basis of that opinion or the assumption that the Veteran was exposed to chemicals during service. While the Veteran may contend that his right leg disability is related to service, the etiology is outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person because it involves complex medical issues that go beyond a simple and immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. See Kahana, 24 Vet. App. at 428; Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377. As preponderance of the evidence is against the appeal, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017). The claims are denied. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. R. Woodarek, Associate Counsel