Citation Nr: 18147830 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/06/18 DOCKET NO. 16-39 135 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Service connection for residuals of an in-service concussion is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has not been shown to have current residuals of an in-service concussion. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for residuals of an in-service concussion have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(c), 3.303, 3.655 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service in the U.S. Army from August 2006 to April 2007, and from December 2007 to December 2008. The claim on appeal was previously considered and denied in a June 2009 VA rating decision. Additional service treatment and personnel records have since been obtained and are relevant to the claim on appeal. Accordingly, the claim will be adjudicated on a de novo basis rather than on the basis of whether new and material evidence has been received. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of an in-service concussion The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file, with an emphasis on the evidence relevant to this appeal. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the extensive evidence of record. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has held that the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Therefore, the Board will summarize the relevant evidence where appropriate, and the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as to the claims. In this regard, the Veteran must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the Veteran). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may 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). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999), citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Service treatment records note that the Veteran suffered a vehicle rollover from hostile enemy action and suffered a concussion in October 2008. Accompanying records reflect that the Veteran was dazed and confused, and experienced immediate symptoms of headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, visual disturbances, and ringing in the years. Subsequently, a January 2009 VA general medical examination report reflects a diagnosis of concussion injury, resolved with no effect on daily activities. March 2012 VA treatment records reflect that the Veteran was assessed with a history of concussion while deployed, which the Veteran presently suffered memory and concentration difficulties. The clinician noted that while it is possible the Veteran may have some cognitive difficulties due to post-concussive syndrome, it is more likely that her significant mental health concerns are the main cause of these manifesting cognitive issues. The Board finds this conclusion in a March 2012 VA treatment record is speculative as to the existence of current residuals of an in-service concussion. Medical evidence that is speculative, general, or inconclusive in nature cannot support a claim. See Obert v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 30, 33 (1993); see Warren v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 4, 6 (1993). The Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination for traumatic brain injury (TBI) in June 2014, which she failed to report. The Veteran submitted a September 2014 statement that she did not receive notice of her scheduled examination. Thus, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) scheduled an additional VA examination for TBI in May 2016, which the Veteran also failed to report. As of this date, no response has been received by the Veteran providing good cause for her absence for the scheduled examination in May 2016. As a result, this claim on appeal will be decided based on the evidence of record. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record reflects the Veteran does not have any direct residuals associated with her in-service concussion. The Board has considered the Veteran’s reported history of symptomatology related to her in-service concussion throughout the appeal period. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Because there is no universal rule as to competence on this issue, the Board must determine on a case-by-case basis whether a particular condition is the type of condition that is within the competence of a lay person to provide an opinion as to its existence or etiology. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 -77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). In this case, the Veteran’s report of memory problems is competent and credible; however, upon clinical evaluation, no current residuals of memory impairment due to her in-service concussion were noted. Therefore, her assertion is of less probative value. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Thus, entitlement to service connection for residuals of an in-service concussion is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). T. Blake Carter Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.L. Reid, Associate Counsel