Citation Nr: 18148059 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/06/18 DOCKET NO. 16-18 732 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral flat feet is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from July to October 1989, September 2006 to February 2007, and December 2008 to June 2009. 2. Bilateral flat feet were not shown in service; flat feet are not currently shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW Bilateral flat feet were not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310 (2012). 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 only be granted for a current disability; when a claimed condition is not shown, there may be no grant of service connection. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992) (Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability). “In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim.” See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Veteran contends that he developed flat feet as a result of active duty service. Specifically, he asserts that the boots he wore during deployment did not have any arch support and caused his arches to fall, resulting in foot pain. As an initial matter, the medical evidence does not support a current diagnosis of flat feet. In a July 2015 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran still had arch height and did not show any signs of flat feet. Although the Veteran experienced pain, there was no evidence of extreme tenderness of the plantar surfaces. There was no decreased longitudinal arch height and no marked pronation of the feet. Therefore, the first element of direct service connection has not been met. Of note, the Veteran reported foot trouble upon entrance to active duty. The clinician diagnosed hallux valgus (bunions). No additional complaints related to bunions were noted in service and the Veteran specifically claimed service connection for flat feet. Therefore, a theory of aggravation of a preexisting disorder is not for consideration. The Veteran has submitted his own statements and statements from fellow service members to support his claim. The Board has considered the lay statements that his foot disorder was caused by service and his buddy statements that he experienced foot pain. He is competent to report symptoms and they are competent to report their observations because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to them through their senses. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, they are not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current foot disorder 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 personnel who have examined the Veteran during the current appeal and by service records obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the examination report and clinical findings than to his statements. 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 T. Kokolas, Associate Counsel