Citation Nr: 18149773 Decision Date: 11/13/18 Archive Date: 11/13/18 DOCKET NO. 16-09 330 DATE: November 13, 2018 ORDER Service connection for bilateral shoulder disabilities is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral shoulder disabilities are not linked to disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty during the Veteran’s reserve service, and not linked to disease or injury incurred or aggravated in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bilateral shoulder disabilities are not satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1110, 1131, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1989 to November 1999, with additional periods of service in the United States Air Force Reserve. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a December 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Decatur, Georgia. Service Connection for Bilateral Shoulder Disabilities In his February 2016 substantive appeal (VA Form 9), the Veteran states that he complained about his bilateral shoulder conditions during periods of active duty for training while serving in the Air Force Reserve. He further asserts that the Air Force’s failure to treat his bilateral shoulder condition ultimately resulted in a rupture of the long head of his left biceps at the tendon in May 2013. For the following reasons, the Board finds that service connection is not established. A. Law Service connection will generally be awarded when a veteran has a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 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). To establish service connection, the evidence must show (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a link or nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 252 (1999). As a threshold matter, veteran status must be established as a condition of eligibility for service connection benefits. Bowers v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 201, 206 (2013) (observing that it is “axiomatic that, to receive VA disability compensation benefits, an appellant must first establish veteran status”) (citing Cropper v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 450, 452 (1994)); see also 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012). The term “veteran” is defined, in relevant part, as “a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service.” 38 U.S.C. § 101(2) (2017); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d) (2017). The term “active military, naval, or air service” includes: (1) active duty; (2) any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; and (3) any period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, or from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident occurring during such training. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a) (2017). The term “active duty” means full-time duty in the Armed Forces, other than active duty for training. 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a). The term ACDUTRA includes, in pertinent part, full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes, and certain full-time duty performed by members of the National Guard of any State. 38 U.S.C. § 101(22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c). The term INACDUTRA includes duty (other than full-time duty) prescribed for Reserves by the Secretary concerned (as defined under 38 U.S.C. § 101(25)) under 37 U.S.C. § 206 or any other provision of law; special additional duties authorized for Reserves by an authority designated by the Secretary concerned and performed by them on a voluntary basis in connection with the prescribed training or maintenance activities of the units to which they are assigned; and duty (other than full-time duty) performed by a member of the National Guard of any State under 32 U.S.C. §§ 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505, or the prior corresponding provision of law. 38 U.S.C. § 101(22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(d). Unless veteran status is established for any period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA—or with regard to the presumption of soundness, veteran status with respect to a prior period of service, and there is a report of examination prior to the training period at issue—presumptions of service connection are not applicable. Bowers, 26 Vet. App. at 206-07; Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 171 (2010); Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40, 45-48 (2010); Acciola v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 320, 324 (2008); see Hill v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 243, 254 (2016) (the presumption of aggravation applies under certain circumstances when veteran status is established with respect to any period of ACDUDTRA). A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue material to the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. B. Analysis The evidence shows that a disease or injury of either shoulder was not incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during a period of ACDUTRA, and that an injury of either shoulder was not incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during a period of INACDUTRA. The Veteran does not state otherwise. Rather, he states that he reported shoulder problems at periodic service examinations while serving in the Air Force Reserve. In this regard, military treatment facility records show that on December 2, 2009 he was seen for a flight physical, and complained of bilateral shoulder pain for the past few years. An Air Force Reserve point credit summary report indicates that the Veteran was on an annual tour during this period. The fact that the Veteran reported having shoulder pain for the past few years at an annual physical while he was in a duty status does not in itself support a finding of disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty. The service treatment records do not otherwise show that he complained of or was treated for shoulder problems. Consistent with the above, the July 2012 VA examination report reflects that the Veteran related a history of shoulder problems for the past five or six years. He stated that “nothing specific happened,” and that he just mentioned his shoulder at yearly physicals. In sum, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury of either shoulder in line of duty during a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. The Veteran does not state, and the evidence does not otherwise show, that he incurred or aggravated a disease or injury of either shoulder during his period of active service from May 1989 to November 1999. Accordingly, the criteria for service connection are not satisfied. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a); Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366. Regarding the Veteran’s statement that the Air Force did not timely treat his shoulder condition, this is not a basis for service connection under VA compensation law. Because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Board is grateful to the Veteran for his service, and regrets that it cannot render a favorable decision in this matter. J. Rutkin Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD V-N. Pratt, Associate Counsel