Citation Nr: 18152404
Decision Date: 11/21/18	Archive Date: 11/21/18

DOCKET NO. 17-16 430
DATE:	November 21, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for bilateral shoulder disability is denied.
FINDING OF FACT
A bilateral shoulder disability is not shown in service and arthritis is not shown within the applicable presumptive period; and the currently shown bilateral shoulder disability, diagnosed as strain, is not otherwise related to service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria to establish service connection for bilateral shoulder disability are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran served on active duty from June 1989 to December 1989, and October 1990 to April 1991, and July 2010 to August 2011.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
Entitlement to service connection for bilateral shoulder disability
The Veteran contends that he developed shoulder pain during active service in Iraq between 2010 and 2011 (specifically February 2011) for which he sought treatment at the time.  He reported that he had to carry all his equipment with frequent moves since he was part of a “mobile team.”  See VA Form 9 (March 2017).
The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against service connection for bilateral shoulder disability.  Neither a right nor left shoulder disability is shown during the Veteran’s active duty service and arthritis is not shown within the initial post separation year (or since active duty service).  Also, neither a right nor left shoulder disability is otherwise related to service, to include carrying and moving equipment, rucksacks, duffle bags, weapons, helmets, and body armor during active service.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.303(b); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Compensation may be awarded for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131.  Service connection basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that an injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303.
Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).  Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in- service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d).
For explicitly recognized chronic diseases (38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a)), service incurrence or aggravation may be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) by demonstrating continuity of symptomatology.  See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  For arthritis, the disability is considered to have been incurred in or aggravated by service although not otherwise established during the period of service if manifested to a compensable degree within one year following service in a period service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a) (3), 3.309(a).
In this case, although service treatment records (STRs) include a medical profile dated in February 2011 that limited the Veteran’s lifting to 10 pounds due to injury for a period of 7 days and advised him to perform range of motion exercises, STRs reflect no chronic shoulder disability.  Notably, the Veteran’s June 2013 Reserves health and readiness assessment reflects that Veteran was physically fit for retention and able to deploy to an austere environment within the next 6 months.  These records show no indication that the Veteran had any chronic shoulder disorder.
The first documented post service complaint of shoulder strain is on the Veteran’s July 2015 VA disability claim.  See VA Form 21-526EZ (July 2015).  VA treatment records reflect findings for right rotator cuff tendonitis -impingement in January 2016 and an impression for right shoulder impingement in July 2016.  A January 2016 x-ray showed mild degenerative changes of the shoulder joint.  See CAPRI (October 2017).
The Board accepts that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, the onset of those symptoms, and treatment.  In this regard, lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by supporting the occurrence of lay-observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation.  38 U.S.C. § 1153(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  However, here, the Veteran is not competent to link any current diagnoses or findings to his active service, including the February 2011 injury or his military duties.  Also, to the extent that he suggests ongoing symptoms since that February 2011 injury, the Board finds this is not credible in view of the June 2013 Reserves assessment, discussed above, and the fact that the Veteran did not claim to have shoulder problems related to service on his initial VA disability claim in January 2013—a time when he was otherwise seeking compensation for disabilities related to service.  See VA 21-526 (January 2013).  It is noted that the Veteran is not competent to link his symptoms shown many years after his active service to his active service, including the February 2011 injury and/or the carrying of heavy bags/equipment.  This is because the etiology is not susceptible to lay observation and he lacks the requisite medical training to formulate a competent medical opinion on the etiology of his current symptoms and/or abnormal pathology.  Therefore, the Veteran’s statements have little probative value.
The Veteran has not presented a favorable medical opinion to weigh in this matter.
The Board assigns greater probative value to the STRs, which show no chronic shoulder disorder, coupled with the June 2013 Reserves health assessment and the many years intervening service and the first documented post service complaints and findings.  See Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 59, 68 (1994) (contemporaneous evidence has greater probative value than history as reported by the claimant).  See also Maxson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 453 (1999), aff’d sub nom., Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
On balance, the weight of the evidence is against the claim.
(Continued on the next page)
 
Accordingly, the claim is denied.  There is no doubt to resolve.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).
 
C.A. SKOW
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	C. E., Associate Counsel