Citation Nr: 18147641
Decision Date: 11/06/18	Archive Date: 11/05/18

DOCKET NO. 17-21 149
DATE:	November 6, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for aortic aneurysm is denied.
FINDING OF FACT
The evidence is insufficient to show that the Veteran’s aortic aneurysm had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service. 
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for entitlement to service connection for aortic aneurysm have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), (c).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active duty from August 1944 to January 1946 and August 1950 to May 1951.
1. Entitlement to service connection for aortic aneurysm.
Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  To establish service connection for a disability, the evidence must show: (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 or aggravated during service.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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).
The Veteran shows a current diagnosis of aortic aneurysm.  See October 2014 VA Treatment Notes.  The issue that remains disputed is whether the Veteran’s aortic aneurysm had its onset in service or is otherwise related to service.  The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim.
Although the Veteran’s complete service treatment records were not available for review, the Veteran’s April 1951 separation examination shows the Veteran’s clinical evaluation showed a normal heart.  The Veteran’s available post-service treatment records do not show a link a between the Veteran’s aortic aneurysm and service. 
Although no VA examination was accorded to the Veteran, the Board finds that no such development is warranted based upon the facts of this case.  In pertinent part, there is medical evidence which diagnoses the current disability but the record does not remotely suggest that his disabilities are due to or incurred during service.  Only the Veteran’s contentions indicate a relationship with service, which is insufficient to trigger an examination since in these circumstances the validity of the assertions would require competent medical evidence. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 438 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis).  
Service connection for aortic aneurysm is not warranted.  As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the doctrine of reasonable doubt does not apply. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).  
 
R. FEINBERG
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J.A. Williams, Associate Counsel