Citation Nr: 18147376 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 16-39 041 DATE: November 5, 2018 ORDER Service connection for hypothyroidism is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from September 1966 to September 1970. 2. Based on his qualifying service in Vietnam, the Veteran is presumed exposed to herbicide agents. 3. The Veteran was not diagnosed with or treated for hypothyroidism during service and hypothyroidism is not etiologically related to any in-service incurrence. CONCLUSION OF LAW Hypothyroidism was not incurred in or caused by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.3.03, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for certain diseases resulting from exposure to an herbicide agent (including Agent Orange) for veterans who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam between January 1962 and May 1975, so long as the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 1116 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, and the rebuttable presumption provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1113 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(d) are also satisfied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The availability of presumptive service connection for a disability based on exposure to herbicides does not preclude a veteran from establishing service connection with proof of direct causation, or on any other recognized basis. Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Turning to the evidence, the first element of service connection – a current disability – is met. VA medical records show a diagnosis of and treatment for hypothyroidism since at least 2010. As such, the first element of service connection is met. The Veteran’s main contention is that hypothyroidism is associated with herbicide exposure. However, hypothyroidism is not on the list of presumptive diseases entitled to service connection due to herbicide exposure. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). As such, the appeal is denied on this basis. As to direct service connection, the service treatment records (STRs) are silent for any diagnosis of, treatment for, or complaints of hypothyroidism or any other thyroid disorder. The August 1970 separation examination reflects that the clinical evaluation of all systems was normal; hypothyroidism was not recorded. However, the Veteran has claimed and evidence confirms that he had qualifying service in Vietnam such that Agent Orange exposure is presumed, and qualifies as an in-service incurrence. As such, the second element of service connection is met. However, the third element of service connection – a medical nexus – is not met. No medical evidence has shown an etiological connection between the Veteran’s specific diagnosis of hypothyroidism and herbicide agent exposure in service. The Veteran submitted a Press Release from the Vietnam Veterans of American and an article in the Military Times in support of his contention that hypothyroidism may be associated with Agent Orange exposure. However, neither of these articles are medical studies and neither focus on his specific exposure and current disability. Thus, the record does not support a direct link between his presumed herbicide exposure in service and diagnosis of hypothyroidism. As such, the medical evidence does not support the third element of service connection. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that hypothyroidism was caused by herbicide exposure during service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current hypothyroidism due to the medical complexity of the matter involved. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462. Such competent evidence has been provided by the medical records and by service records obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. Based on the above, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Brendan A. Evans, Associate Counsel