Citation Nr: 18150178 Decision Date: 11/14/18 Archive Date: 11/14/18 DOCKET NO. 16-45 744 DATE: November 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is denied. Entitlement to service for a left hamstring tear is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The competent evidence of record shows that the Veteran has not had a diagnosis of a left ankle condition, or treatment therefor, at any time during the appeal period. 2. The competent evidence of record shows that the Veteran has not had a diagnosis of a left hamstring tear, or treatment therefor, at any time during the appeal period. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an award for service connection for a left ankle condition disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303 (2017). 2. The criteria for an award for service connection for a left hamstring disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the US Army from February 2005 to July 2008, and subsequent periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) with the Army National Guard and the Army Reserves. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Muskogee, Oklahoma. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability and a left hamstring tear is denied Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The standard of proof to be applied in decisions on claims for veterans’ benefits is outlined in 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012). A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017). When a claimant seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant prevails. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for benefits to be denied. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d at 1328, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the absence of evidence of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319. The Veteran’s claims for service connection were received in August 2012; wherein he asserts that he has a left ankle condition and left hamstring tear incurred in service. He received said conditions in July 2009, while patrolling in a heavy wooded area and his left foot became tangled in tree roots. The evidence of record shows that in January 2009, the Veteran complained of ankle and knee pain due to injuries from the Army. He indicated that he did a lot of parachuting while in service. In June 2009, the Veteran complained of increased pain and inability to walk for the last 24 hours. He indicated that he heard a “pop” and could no longer bear weight on his left foot. He was assessed with a left ankle sprain. An Individual Sick Slip dated that same month, revealed that the Veteran sustained a left ankle injury in the line of duty. During a January 2010 medications management session, the Veteran indicated that he had pain in the back, knees, and ankles. He indicated that pain level was a 7 out of 10, on a scale from 1/10. He indicated that his pain treatment was managed by a primary care provider. A March 2011 medical entry noted that the Veteran reported to ambulatory with a limp and complained of left hamstring pain, rated 6/10. The Veteran indicated that he was doing physical therapy “yesterday,” including sprints, and felt a pop and left leg pain. However, records since 2011 do not show complaints of hamstring or left ankle symptoms, nor has the Veteran provided a lay description of symptoms during the appeal period. This supports a finding that the symptoms resolved prior to the appeal period. See Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013). The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements. He is competent to describe observable symptoms. 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 layperson to provide an opinion as to etiology. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). Laypersons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues. In this case, the Veteran has not provided lay statements in support of his claim other than to state that he was injured on active duty, which is not in dispute. Pain without an underlying diagnosis may be a disability for VA purposes if functional impairment of earning capacity is shown. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018). However, “[t]o establish the presence of a disability, a veteran will need to show that … pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity.” Id. at 1367-1368. The medical evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has left hamstring or left ankle pain that results in functional impairment of earning capacity. Additionally, the Veteran has not provided a lay description of his symptoms other than to state that the injuries occurred in service. He has not shown that he has left hamstring or left ankle pain that reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity. In summary, although the medical evidence shows that the Veteran experienced left ankle and hamstring pain during service, the competent medical evidence of record does not show that he has had a left ankle condition and a left hamstring disability or received treatment for one during the period on appeal. Further, he has not asserted that he has left hamstring or left ankle pain that causes functional impairment of earning capacity during the appeal period. For these reasons, the Board finds that he does not have a left hamstring or left ankle disability for VA purposes. The first element of a service connection claim is not met. Shedden, 381 F.3d at 1166-67. Accordingly, the preponderance of the competent evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has had left hamstring and left ankle disabilities during the appeal period. Therefore, the Board finds that service connection for a left ankle condition and a left hamstring tear is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Stevens, Associate Counsel