Citation Nr: 18151585 Decision Date: 11/19/18 Archive Date: 11/19/18 DOCKET NO. 17-25 096 DATE: November 19, 2018 ORDER Service connection for hypertension is denied. Service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is denied. Service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The record evidence shows no diagnosis of hypertension. 2. The record evidence shows no diagnosis of GERD. 3. The record evidence shows no diagnosis for diabetes mellitus, type II. 4. The Veteran failed to report to three separately scheduled VA examinations in connection with this appeal, and no good cause was shown for the failure to report. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.655. 2. The criteria for service connection for GERD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.655. 3. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.655. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Service Connection The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for hypertension, GERD, and diabetes mellitus, type II, as related to his service in Vietnam and as a result of Agent Orange exposure. Generally, to prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be proven by presumption. If a Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active service, presumptive service connection is warranted for several medical conditions, including type II diabetes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). However, here the three claims of service connection for hypertension, GERD, and diabetes mellitus, type II, fail due to lack of evidence of currently diagnosed disability. The Veteran was scheduled for multiple VA examinations to assist him in substantiating his claims, but has failed to report to them. He initially failed to report to the first two scheduled examinations in June 2016 and April 2017. Subsequently, on his Form 9 Substantive Appeal, he indicated that he lived in the Dominican Republic and would attend an examination if it could be scheduled to occur in Puerto Rico. As a result, the RO scheduled a third examination for him, to occur in Puerto Rico in June 2017. However, the Veteran again failed to report to the examination. The record reflects that VA staff attempted to contact the Veteran via telephone and via letter, but the Veteran has not provided a reason for his failure to report. After three (3) examination scheduling attempts, and no explanation for his most recent failure to appear, the Board finds that the Veteran’s failure to report to for VA examination was without good cause. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. Thus, his claims for service connection will be considered based on the evidence of record. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that “[t]he duty to assist is not always a one-way street. If a Veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence.” Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The evidence of record does not show a current disability during the appeal period or otherwise for hypertension, GERD, and diabetes mellitus, type II. While the Board notes a 2007 VA treatment record containing a self-report of hypertension, a diagnosis of hypertension for VA purposes must be confirmed by blood pressure readings taken two more times on at least three different days. Although the record also reflects some private medical evidence reflecting metabolic function laboratory readings, those documents do not reflects any diagnoses for the claimed disabilities. The record does not reflect that the Veteran has had a current diagnosis of GERD, diabetes mellitus, type II, or hypertension, at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). While the Veteran may believe he has a current diagnosis of hypertension, GERD, and/or diabetes mellitus, type II, he has not demonstrated that he possesses the requisite skill/training to provide a medical diagnosis. Such diagnoses require specialized medical education/knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body/the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Veteran’s lay statements alleging that he experiences certain disabilities cannot constitute probative evidence. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997). Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection for disease or injury to cases where such in-service events have resulted in a current disability. Thus, without “competent evidence of current disability,” there can be no award of service connection. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995). Based on the lack of evidence of currently diagnosed disabilities, the Board must deny the claims for service connection for hypertension, GERD, and diabetes mellitus. JEBBY RASPUTNIS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Nichols, Counsel