Citation Nr: 18148251 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 15-39 125 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER The claim of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for a hand laceration is denied. The claim of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for a head injury is denied The claim of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder also claimed as and symptoms of feeling numb, lack of emotions, sleep problems, memory loss, trouble concentrating, nervousness, flashbacks, anxiety, and depression is denied. The claim of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for entitlement to service connection for conditions due to Agent Orange exposure is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left arm disability to include left arm damage with burn is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a shoulder disability to include broken and dislocated left collar bone is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a dislocated left elbow is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a broken back is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability to include surgical scars is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability to include toes is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability to include toes is denied. Entitlement to service connection for broken right finger is denied. Entitlement to service connection for injured ribs is denied. Entitlement to service connection for left leg shrapnel wound with scars is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right leg shrapnel wound with scars is denied. Entitlement to service connection for back gunshot wound is denied. Entitlement to service connection for an eye condition with blurred vision is denied. Entitlement to service connection for loss of smell is denied. Entitlement to service connection for loss of taste is denied. Entitlement to service connection for dizziness is denied. Entitlement to service connection for runny nose is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a breathing condition is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a bowel disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a bladder disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for burns to top of head, face, lips and forehead is denied. Entitlement to service connection for head shrapnel scars is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a neck cut is denied. Entitlement to service connection for split to right side of chin is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a throat cut is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hair loss is denied. Entitlement to service connection for skin problem of the legs is denied. Entitlement to service connection for headaches is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right leg numbness is denied. Entitlement to service connection for left leg numbness is denied. Entitlement to service connection for nerve damage of the back is denied. Entitlement to service connection for seizures is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a jaw disability is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for impotence is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right ankle surgical scars is remanded. Entitlement to an initial rating higher than 10 percent for right ankle strain is remanded. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for penis deformity (severed and burnt) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Service connection for hand laceration was last denied in an April 1983 rating decision. The evidence added to the record with regards to hand laceration since the April 1983 rating decision is cumulative or redundant, does not cure a prior evidentiary defect and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 2. Service connection for a head injury was last denied in an April 1983 rating decision. The evidence added to the record with regards to a head injury since the April 1983 rating decision is cumulative or redundant, does not cure a prior evidentiary defect and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 3. Service connection for PTSD was last denied in a March 1997 Board decision. The evidence added to the record with regards to PTSD since the March 1997 rating decision is cumulative or redundant, does not cure a prior evidentiary defect and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 4. Service connection for conditions due to Agent Orange exposure was last denied in a March 1997 Board decision. The evidence added to the record with regards to conditions due to Agent Orange exposure since the March 1997 Board decision is cumulative or redundant, does not cure a prior evidentiary defect and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 5. A left arm disability to include left arm damage was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 6. A shoulder disability to include broken and dislocated left collar bone was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 7. A dislocated left elbow was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 8. A back disability was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 9. A left knee disability to include surgical scars was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 10. A right knee disability was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 11. A left ankle disability was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 12. A left foot disability to include toes was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 13. A right foot disability to include toes was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 14. Broken right finger was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 15. Injured ribs were not manifest in service and are not otherwise attributable to service. 16. Left leg shrapnel wound with scars was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 17. Right leg shrapnel wound with scars was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 18. Back gunshot wound was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 19. An eye condition with blurred vision was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 20. Loss of smell was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 21. Loss of taste was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 22. Dizziness was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 23. Runny nose was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 24. A breathing condition was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 25. Hypertension was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 26. A bowel disability was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 27. A bladder disability was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 28. Burns to top of head, face, lips and forehead were not manifest in service and are not otherwise attributable to service. 29. Head shrapnel was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 30. A neck cut was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 31. Split to right side of chin was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 32. A throat cut was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 33. Hair loss was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 34. Skin problem of the legs was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 35. Headaches were not manifest in service and are not otherwise attributable to service. 36. Right leg numbness was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 37. Left leg numbness was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 38. Nerve damage of the back was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. 39. Seizures were not manifest in service and are not otherwise attributable to service. 40. A jaw disability was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The April 1983 rating decision denying service connection for a hand laceration is final. New and material evidence to reopen the claim for service connection for a hand laceration has not been received. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156 (a), 3.159 (2017). 2. The April 1983 rating decision denying service connection for a head injury is final. New and material evidence to reopen the claim for service connection for a head injury has not been received. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156 (a), 3.159 (2017). 3. The March 1997 Board decision denying service connection for PTSD is final. New and material evidence to reopen the claim for service connection for PTSD has not been received. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156 (a), 3.159 (2017). 4. The March 1997 Board decision denying service connection for conditions due to Agent Orange exposure is final. New and material evidence to reopen the claim for service connection for conditions due to Agent Orange exposure has not been received. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156 (a), 3.159 (2017). 5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left arm disability to include left arm damage with burn have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a shoulder disability to include broken and dislocated left collar bone have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 7. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a dislocated left elbow have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 8. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 9. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability to include surgical scars have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 10. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 11. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 12. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability to include toes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 13. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability to include toes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 14. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for broken right finger have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 15. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for injured ribs have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 16. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left leg shrapnel wound with scars have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 17. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right leg shrapnel wound with scars have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 18. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for back gunshot wound have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 19. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an eye condition with blurred vision have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 20. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for loss of smell have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 21. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for loss of taste have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 22. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for dizziness have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 23. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for runny nose have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 24. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a breathing condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 25. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 26. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bowel disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 27. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bladder disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 28. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for burns to top of head, face, lips and forehead have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 29. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for head shrapnel have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 30. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a neck cut have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 31. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for split to right side of chin have not been met. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 32. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a throat cut have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 33. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hair loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 34. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for skin problem of the legs have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 35. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for headaches have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 36. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right leg numbness have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 37. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left leg numbness have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 38. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for nerve damage of the back have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 39. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for seizures have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 40. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a jaw disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the U.S. Army from June 1976 to July 1977. In his October 2015 VA Form 9 Substantive Appeal, the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing before a member of the Board. He noted, however, that he “had no way of doing this” as he was in incarcerated. In relation to this request, in May 2017, VA contacted the Correctional Center where the Veteran is incarcerated. A representative indicated that the facility does not have video capabilities for video hearings and it does not transfer inmates. Given that VA is not logistically able to provide this incarcerated Veteran a hearing, the Board will consider the Veteran’s claim without the requested hearing. The duty to assist incarcerated Veterans requires VA to tailor its assistance to meet the peculiar circumstances of confinement, as such individuals are entitled to the same care and consideration given to their fellow veterans. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991); Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185, 191 (1995). Here, VA has no means to provide the Veteran a hearing due to his incarceration and the terms and conditions of his Correction Facility. The Veteran has had ample opportunity, however, to present evidence and argument in support of his claims. The Board also notes that in March 2018 the Veteran requested that his representative be removed from his appeal and he expressed that he wished to represent himself in this matter. New and Material Generally, a claim which has been denied in an unappealed RO decision or an unappealed Board decision may not thereafter be reopened and allowed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(b), 7105(c). An exception to this rule is 38 U.S.C. § 5108, which provides that if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened, and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). In determining whether evidence is new and material, the credibility of the evidence is generally presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 512-513 (1992). Evidence that is merely cumulative of other evidence in the record cannot be new and material even if that evidence had not been previously presented to the Board. Anglin v. West, 203 F.3d 1343, 1347 (2000). In deciding whether new and material evidence has been submitted the Board looks to the evidence submitted since the last final denial of the claim on any basis. Evans v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 273, 285 (1996). The threshold for determining whether new and material evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim is low. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117 (2010). Reopening is required when the newly submitted evidence, combined with VA assistance and considered with the other evidence of record, raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. Shade, 24 Vet. App. at 117. The Veteran appeals the denial to reopen the claims for entitlement to service connection for a head injury, laceration of the hand, PTSD and conditions related to Agent Orange exposure to include skin, eyes, throat and head. In his March 1983 claim for compensation, he claimed that he sustained a head injury and laceration of the hand when military police attempted to take him into custody. In an April 1983 rating decision, service connection for a head injury and laceration of the hand was denied. The RO denied the claims on the basis that there was no evidence of such incident nor any other evidence of a laceration of the hand or head injury during service. The Veteran did not appeal that decision and did not submit new and material evidence within the one-year appeal period. The April 1983 decision denying service connection for laceration of the hand and head injury became final. In a November 1994 rating decision, the Veteran was denied service connection for PTSD and conditions related to Agent Orange exposure. The Veteran perfected an appeal to that decision. In March 1997, the Board found against the claims for service connection for PTSD and conditions related to Agent Orange exposure. The Board found that medical evidence confirming a diagnosis of PTSD had not been presented and that the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD was not plausible. The Board also found that the Veteran did not submit any evidence that supports his claim that he served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era, or that he has any disabilities considered to be the result of exposure to herbicide agents. In May 1997, the Veteran requested reconsideration of the Board’s March 1997 decision but his request was denied in August 1997. The March 1997 Board decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7104. At the time of the April 1983 denial for service connection for a head injury and laceration of the hand, the record contained the Veteran’s lay statements that he sustained a head injury and laceration of the hand when military police attempted to take him into custody. It is also shown that service treatment records were of file at that time. Since the last final denial on this matter, the Veteran has been afforded VA examinations unrelated to these claims. He has also resubmitted lay statements asserting combat related traumas. At the time of the March 1997 denial for service connection for PTSD and conditions related to Agent Orange exposure, the record contained the Veteran’s lay statements that he suffered from PTSD due to combat related experiences and traumas, a March 1983 psychiatric VA hospital record, and his claim of Agent Orange exposure from serving in Vietnam. He claimed that he had service between 1970 and 1983 in Southeast Asia, and that served in and out of Vietnam from 1971 to 1975. He claimed he was shot down, captured and wounded during this time. The Veteran also claimed that he participated in classified special forces campaigns in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and China. He stated that, he engaged in extensive combat operations in those areas, and that he was eventually discharged in 1983 as a Lieutenant Colonel. Since the last final denial on this matter, the Veteran has been afforded VA examinations unrelated to these claims. He has also resubmitted lay statements asserting combat related traumas and exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. On careful review of the record, the Board has determined that new and material evidence to reopen the claims for service connection for laceration of the hand, head injury, PTSD and conditions related to Agent Orange exposure have not been submitted. The Veteran’s claims for service connection for laceration of the hand and a head injury were previously denied on the basis that there was no evidence of a laceration of the hand or head injury during service. Service treatment records show a report of a head injury from a football injury without sequela during the December 1975 examination. As service treatment records were available at the time of the last final denial, this evidence had already been considered. A head injury during service, however, is still not shown by the record. Service treatment records also fail to show treatment and/or complaints for the hands. Although the Veteran has resubmitted lay statements asserting a head injury and laceration of the hand due to service, he has not submitted any evidence showing a nexus between his service and the claimed conditions. The Veteran’s claims for service connection for PTSD and conditions related to Agent Orange exposure were previously denied on the basis that there was no evidence confirming a diagnosis of PTSD, there was no evidence that he served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era, or that he has any disabilities considered to be the result of exposure to herbicide agents. Although the Veteran has re-submitted his contentions that he participated in combat and served in Vietnam, these statements had already been considered. Therefore, such evidence is cumulative. He has not submitted any evidence confirming a diagnosis of PTSD and/or that his claim for service connection for PTSD is plausible, nor has he submitted any additional evidence showing that he served in Vietnam during his service. The Veteran has not submitted any evidence showing that his laceration of the hand and/or head injury are related to service. He also has not submitted any evidence showing a diagnosis of PTSD, that he served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era, or that he has conditions that are due to Agent Orange exposure. Because the evidence submitted since the last final decision on these matters are cumulative and/or does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims for service connection, he has not submitted new and material evidence on these matters. Thus, the Board concludes that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claims for service connection for PTSD, conditions related to Agent Orange exposure, a head injury and/or laceration of the hand. Stated differently, service connection for PTSD, conditions related to Agent Orange exposure, head injury and/or laceration of the hand were denied in the past because the record was devoid of a showing that the conditions were related to service. No material facts have changed. Service Connection The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for a disability of the left arm, shoulder, dislocated left elbow, back, left knee to include surgical scars, right knee, left ankle, left foot to include toes, right foot to include toes, broken right finger, injured ribs, left leg shrapnel wound with scars, right leg shrapnel wound with scars, back gunshot wound, eye condition with blurred vision, loss of smell, loss of taste, dizziness, runny nose, breathing condition, hypertension, bowel, bladder, impotence, burns (to top of head, face, lips and forehead), head shrapnel, neck cut, split to right side of chin, throat cut, hair loss, skin problem of the legs, headaches, right leg numbness, left leg numbness, nerve damage of the back, seizures and jaw. After review of the record, the Board finds against the claims. Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury sustained or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service treatment records show that in July 1976 the Veteran was treated for a rash on his leg, "jock itch," and ring worm on his arm. He reported broken bones and an unknown history of high or low blood pressure in the December 1976 evaluation. The Veteran was seen for right knee trauma in May 1977 and in July 1977 he hurt his left foot while playing softball. During the May 1977 separation examination, with the exception of a right ankle surgical scar, examination revealed normal findings for all areas examined. It was noted that there was no significant or internal history. Normal physical examination was diagnosed. Initially, the Board finds against the claims for service connection for a right knee and left foot disability. To that end, the Board has reviewed the lay statements, service examination reports, VA medical records and VA examinations. There is no competent evidence or opinion that the Veteran’s current right knee and/or left foot disabilities are related to his military service. To the contrary, during the December 2013 VA examination, the Veteran reported hurting his foot in service on various occasions including during a softball game and while being involved in a landmine explosion in Vietnam. He expressed that his foot has been hurting off and on since then. The December 2013 VA examiner opined the Veteran’s left foot condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the history of hurting his left foot on the softball team during July 1977. The VA examiner reasoned that review of the service treatment records show that in July 1977 he had a left foot injury, however, there is no documentation of him having recurrent or chronic foot problems in service or following discharge. He noted that there was no evidence of chronicity. The Board also notes that while the Vietnam reports serving in Vietnam, his personnel records do not reflect such service. The VA examiner also found that the Veteran’s right knee condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by right knee pain diagnosed as bursitis during service in May 1977. He reasoned that review of the service treatment records indicate that the Veteran had right knee bursitis in May 1977 but there was no documentation of the Veteran having recurrent knee pain during service or in the years following discharge. He stated that there was no evidence of chronicity. The Board finds that the medical opinion proffered by the VA examiner is persuasive and assigns it greater probative weight than the lay statements of record. The opinion of the VA examiner was rendered by a medical professional with the expertise to opine on the matter at issue in this case. The examiner addressed the Veteran’s contentions and based the opinions on a review of the claims folder to include consideration of the in-service history and the nature of the current disabilities. The opinions are consistent with the historical record to include normal findings for the lower extremities and feet at separation. The Board finds no factual inaccuracies. Rather, the examiner thoroughly considered the Veteran’s in-service knee and foot complaints and treatment. This accepted history was reviewed in the entirety of the record, to include the lay and medical evidence suggesting normal feet and lower extremities at separation. For the reasons detailed above, the Board must find against the Veteran’s claims for service connection for a right knee and left foot disability. In making this decision, the Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report pain and the circumstances surrounding such. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on observable lay symptoms or conditions, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), the specific issue in this case—the etiology of his right knee and left foot disabilities—falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining in footnote 4 that a Veteran is competent to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg, but not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions). The Board finds that the opinions of the VA examiner is far more probative and persuasive as to the etiology of the Veteran’s disabilities. The Board further finds against the claims for service connection for left arm, shoulder, dislocated left elbow, back, left knee to include surgical scars, left ankle, left foot to include toes, right foot to include toes, broken right finger, injured ribs, left leg shrapnel wound with scars, right leg shrapnel wound with scars, back gunshot wound, eye condition with blurred vision, loss of smell, loss of taste, dizziness, runny nose, breathing condition, hypertension, bowel, bladder, impotence, burns (to top of head, face, lips and forehead), head shrapnel, neck cut, split to right side of chin, throat cut, hair loss, skin problem of the legs, headaches, right leg numbness, left leg numbness, nerve damage of the back, seizures and jaw. To that end, there is no competent evidence suggesting that the Veteran’s service caused and/or contributed to any of the above disabilities. There is also no competent evidence suggesting that the Veteran has manifested recurrent symptoms of any of these disabilities since service. Even assuming, arguendo, that the Veteran has the disabilities claimed above, there is no persuasive or competent evidence suggesting an association to service. Although the Veteran claims airborne injuries from his airplane being shot down during service and combat related traumas, the record does not show any in service airborne injuries and/or combat service. The Board also notes that while the Veteran reports that his disabilities are “verified” by the December 2013 VA examination, the December 2013 VA examination does not verify the disabilities addressed above. To the extent that the Veteran was treated for a rash on his leg, “jock itch,” and ring worm on his arm in July 1976, the Board notes that such appears to have been acute and resolved prior to separation. As the December 1976 evaluation and May 1977 separation examinations disclosed normal findings for the skin and the Veteran denied skin diseases during the December 1976 evaluation, a chronic disability resulting therefrom is not shown by the record. The Board also notes that while the Veteran reported broken bones and that he did not know if he had a history of high or low pressure in December 1976, examination at time and the May 1977 separation examination both disclosed normal clinical findings. Furthermore, while the Veteran complained of nerve, back, headaches, throat and skin problems in March 1995, there was no mention or showing of an in-service onset. The Board also notes that the Veteran has been an unreliable historian. In this regard, in various statements the Veteran has maintained that he served from 1967 to 1996, and that he participated in classified special forces campaigns in Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, and China. He stated that he engaged in extensive combat operations in those areas and that he was hit was chemical warfare during the Gulf War. He further maintains that his military file had either been destroyed or sealed in order to prevent him from verifying claims regarding his military service. The Veteran reported serving from 1967 to 1996 in October 2012, 1966 to 1996 in December 2015 and from 1970 to 1977 in March 1995. The Board notes, however, that the Veteran's Form DD-214 shows that he only had active military service from June 1976 to July 1977 with six months of prior inactive duty service. The record shows that he was stationed in Germany for approximately six months during his period of service and that such was his only foreign service. He served after the Vietnam War had ended and there is no showing that he served in the Gulf War. While the Veteran has alleged fraudulent misrepresentation and being involved in secret undercover missions as early as 10-11 years of age, such claims remain unfounded and are inconsistent with the record to include the Veteran’s own statements. The Board also notes that given that the Veteran was born in 1956 it is unlikely that he served in 1966 as he was only 10 years old at that time. It is also noted that the historical record is against the Veteran’s claims that his jet was shot down in Laos or Cambodia, his chopper was shot down in Vietnam and that he was shot in the back and the leg during service. As noted, his personnel and service treatment records disclose that his only foreign service was in Germany. The Board also notes that while the Veteran claims he was shot at multiple times during service and sustained multiple gunshot wounds, there is no showing of any combat service and/or related trauma in the record. Rather, his separation examination disclosed normal clinical findings and the examiner specifically noted there was “no significant or internal history.” Furthermore, the record is against a showing that the Veteran received the Purple Heart and/or any other medals or decorations as he alleges. Contrary to his assertions, the Veteran’s DD 214 shows that he did not receive any medals during his service. The Veteran has given inconsistent and unreliable statements regarding his service which goes against his credibility and renders him an unreliable historian. The Board finds that the objective findings which were made contemporaneous in time to service, particularly the May 1977 separation examination, are considered the most reliable history provided by the Veteran. In light of the above discussion, the Board must find against the claims for service connection for left arm, shoulder, dislocated left elbow, back, left knee to include surgical scars, left ankle, left foot to include toes, right foot to include toes, broken right finger, injured ribs, left leg shrapnel wound with scars, right leg shrapnel wound with scars, back gunshot wound, eye condition with blurred vision, loss of smell, loss of taste, dizziness, runny nose, breathing condition, hypertension, bowel, bladder, impotence, burns (to top of head, face, lips and forehead), head shrapnel, neck cut, split to right side of chin, throat cut, hair loss, skin problem of the legs, headaches, right leg numbness, left leg numbness, nerve damage of the back, seizures and jaw. In making this determination, the Board is mindful that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in relation to these claims for service connection. Under McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), in disability compensation (service connection) claims, the VA must provide a VA medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran’s service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the VA to make a decision on the claim. As noted, however, there is no credible evidence of recurrent symptoms of a disability that may be associated with the Veteran’s service. As such, the Board finds that the low threshold for obtaining a medical examination and/or opinion has not been met for these claims. As there is no credible evidence of recurrent or persistent symptoms since service or within one year of discharge, the claims are denied based on chronicity under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) or chronic disease manifesting to a compensable degree within one year of service discharge under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). The evidence does not indicate that the Veteran has disabilities of the left arm, shoulder, left elbow, back, left knee, left ankle, left foot, right foot, right finger, ribs, left leg, right leg, eye, smell, taste, dizziness, nose, breathing, hypertension, bowel, bladder, burns, head shrapnel, neck, chin, throat, hair, skin, head, right leg, left leg, nerves, seizures and/or jaw that are related to service such as to require an examination, even under the low threshold of McLendon. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that a conclusory generalized statement that a service illness caused his present medical problems was insufficient to trigger duty to provide medical examination as this theory would eliminate the carefully drafted statutory standards governing the provision of medical examinations and require the Secretary to provide such examinations as a matter of course in virtually every veteran’s disability case). Therefore, the claims are denied. In sum, the most probative evidence of record preponderates against the Veteran’s claims for service connection. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, that doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran appeals the denial of an initial rating higher than 10 percent for right ankle strain with medial ligament repair. In relation to his claim, the Veteran was last examined by VA in December 2013. Since the last VA examination, however, the Board notes that the Court in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), held that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that VA examinations include joint testing for pain on both active and passive motion, in weight-bearing and non-weight bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint. Thus, the Court’s holding in Correia establishes additional requirements that must be met prior to finding that a VA examination is adequate. It is also noted that during the December 2013 VA examination the Veteran reported flare ups of right ankle pain, the VA examiner found that determining the impact of a flare up on the function of the ankle required resort to speculation as the Veteran was not experiencing a flare up at that time. The Board notes that VA examiner’s finding does not comply with a recent holding in Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017). VA examiners have the obligation to elicit information regarding flare-ups of a musculoskeletal disability if an examination is not conducted during such a flare-up, and to use that information to characterize additional functional loss during flare-ups in terms of loss in range of motion, if feasible. See Sharp, 29 Vet. App, 26. Here, that was not done. As such, another examination is required. The issue of entitlement to service connection for right ankle surgical scars is inextricably intertwined with the above issue and must also be remanded. See Parker v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 116 (1994); Harris v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). With regards to the Veteran’s claim for an initial compensable rating for penis deformity (severed and burnt), the Board also finds that additional development is needed. To that end, in relation to this claim, the Veteran was last examined by VA in December 2013. Since his last VA examination, he has reported swelling, loss of skin and flare ups. In light of the Veteran’s lay statements, the Board finds that a remand is warranted so that he can be afforded a VA examination to determine the current severity of his disability. The issue of entitlement to service connection for impotence is inextricably intertwined with the above issue and must also be remanded. Lastly, the Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for a bilateral hearing loss disability and tinnitus. In relation to his claim, in December 2013, the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination. The record shows that he failed to appear for the scheduled examination. The Veteran has since stated that he was not informed of the scheduled examination and that due to his incarceration he had no control over this matter. While it appears that the Veteran has been afforded VA examinations while incarcerated for other disabilities, in an October 2015 report of contact a representative from the Veteran’s facility stated that they no longer transported Veterans for examinations. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has specifically addressed VA’s duty to assist incarcerated veterans in cases where a VA examination is warranted. Specifically, the Court has cautioned “those who adjudicate claims of incarcerated veterans to be certain that they tailor their assistance to the peculiar circumstances of confinement. Such individuals are entitled to the same care and consideration given to their fellow veterans.” See Bolton v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 185 (1995) (citing Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991)). In Bolton, the Court remanded a case where the RO claimed an inability to get a fee-basis physician to conduct an examination at a correctional facility. In that case, further efforts were deemed necessary to attempt to examine that Veteran. In the case of VA medical examinations, VA does not have the authority to require a correctional institution to release a veteran so that VA can provide him the necessary examination at the closest VA medical facility. However, VA’s duty to assist an incarcerated veteran includes: (1) attempting to arrange transportation of the claimant to a VA facility for examination; (2) contacting the correctional facility and having their medical personnel conduct an examination according to VA examination work sheets; or (3) sending a VA or fee-basis examiner to the correctional facility to conduct the examination. See Bolton, 8 Vet. App. at 191. Here, it does not appear that the AOJ ever contacted or corresponded with the correctional facility to determine whether the medical personnel at the correctional facility could conduct an examination in accordance with VA examination worksheets and/or whether a VA examiner could perform the examination at the facility. Thus, the Board finds that, in order to fully comply with the duty to assist the Veteran in the development of his claims, the AOJ should take further steps to determine whether an examination can be scheduled consistent with the provisions set forth above. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Update for the record all relevant private and VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to address the nature and etiology of any current bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner must be provided access to the Veteran’s electronic claims file. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not, i.e., is there a 50/50 chance that the Veteran’s disability had its onset in service or was caused by service. The VA examiner is asked to specifically comment on the concept of a delayed onset hearing loss (i.e., does absence of pertinent complaints and normal audiometry at separation preclude opinion as to a nexus between the current disability and exposure to noise trauma in service). If feasible, the examiner is asked to cite to medical literature supporting the responses to the questions posed. The VA examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. The examiner must reconcile any opinion with the service treatment and personnel records, any post-service diagnoses, lay statements and testimony of the Veteran. If he or she rejects the lay evidence, an explanation must be provided, and the examiner should note that the mere passage of time without treatment is not a sufficient basis for finding that no relationship between a current disability and service exists. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected right ankle sprain. Access to the electronic claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. In accordance with the latest worksheets for rating the ankle, the examiner is to provide a detailed review of the Veteran’s pertinent medical history, current complaints and the nature and extent of his disability. In order to comply with Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), the examiner is asked to describe whether pain, weakness, fatigue and/or incoordination significantly limits functional ability during flares or repetitive use, and if so, the examiner must estimate range of motion during flares or repetitive use. If the examination does not take place during a flare, the examiner should have the Veteran describe and/or demonstrate the extent of motion loss during flares or repetitive use and provide the extent of motion loss described in terms of degrees. If there is no pain and/or no limitation of function, such facts must be noted in the report. The examiner should comment as to whether there is any medical reason to accept or reject the Veteran’s description of reduced range of motion during flares or repetitive use. Also, in order to comply with the Court’s decision in Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), the VA examination must include range of motion testing in the following areas: • Active motion; • Passive motion; • Weight-bearing; and • Nonweight-bearing. The examiner must test and record the range of motion for the right ankle in active motion, passive motion, weight-bearing, and nonweight-bearing for the joint in question and any undamaged paired joint. The degree at which pain begins must be documented. If the examiner is unable to conduct the required testing or concludes that the required testing is not necessary in this case, he or she should clearly explain why that is so. The VA examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity and manifestations of his service-connected penis deformity. Access to the electronic claims file must be made available to the examiner for review. In accordance with the latest worksheets for rating penis deformity, the examiner is to provide a detailed review of the Veteran’s pertinent medical history, current complaints and the nature and extent of his disability. The VA examiner should provide a complete rationale for any opinions provided. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T.S. Willie