Citation Nr: 18147487 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 18-31 113 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is denied. FINDING OF FACT 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 TBI. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for TBI are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1998 to May 2006. 1. Traumatic Brain Injury The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for TBI, which he asserts he suffered during combat while in service. 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. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a TBI 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 v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Veteran was afforded VA examinations for his service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in March 2012, September 2014, May 2017, and November 2017. Each of the examiners found that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of TBI. And, despite consistent treatment from August 2009 to May 2018, VA treatment records do not contain a diagnosis of TBI. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has asserted he had a head injury during combat, but no record of the injury exists because of the conditions of combat. See April 2018 notice of disagreement and May 2018 VA Form 9. Where a veteran asserts service connection for injuries or disease incurred or aggravated in combat, satisfactory lay or other evidence that an injury or disease was incurred or aggravated in combat will be accepted as sufficient proof of service connection if the evidence is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service even though there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (d). However, in this case, in a January 2005 post-deployment health assessment, the Veteran reported that his health had stayed the same or got better during deployment, he was not exposed to excessive vibration, and had no concerns about any event that happened during deployment. Later, during an August 2009 VA TBI screening, the Veteran specifically denied experiencing any TBI related events while he was deployed. And during the March 2012 VA examination, the Veteran reported that during a deployment, while out on a convoy, his vehicle was hit by an improvised explosive device (IED), but he was not injured because the IED went off late. As such, the Board finds he has not presented satisfactory lay or other evidence to support a finding that a head injury was incurred in combat or active duty service generally. Moreover, the provision does not mean that a grant of service connection is presumed. Even when the section 1154(b) combat presumptions apply, a “veteran seeking compensation must still show the existence of a present disability and that there is a causal relationship between the present disability and the injury...incurred during active duty.” Reeves v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 988, 998-99 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, because the competent evidence of record does not support a finding that the Veteran has a currently diagnosed TBI, and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) do not aid the Veteran in substantiating his claim. In sum, while the Veteran may believe he has a current diagnosis of a TBI, he has not been shown to be competent to render a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Mine, Associate Counsel