Citation Nr: 18152583 Decision Date: 11/23/18 Archive Date: 11/23/18 DOCKET NO. 16-48 619 DATE: November 23, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT Currently diagnosed GERD was not first manifested on active duty service, and is not otherwise shown to be related to military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for GERD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from August 1974 to January 1975. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Service Connection Service connection will be granted if it is shown that the veteran suffers from a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, during active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Disorders diagnosed after discharge will still be service connected if all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); see also Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In order to establish service connection on a direct basis, the record must contain competent evidence of: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Competent medical evidence is evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Competent medical evidence may also include statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. It also includes statements contained in authoritative writings, such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Competent lay evidence is any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). This may include some medical matters, such as describing symptoms or relating a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). A layperson is generally not capable of opining on matters requiring medical knowledge. Routen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 183, 186 (1997). See also Bostain v. West, 11 Vet. App. 124, 127 (1998). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for GERD. In March 2011 correspondence, the Veteran reported that his gas mask fell off during training in a gas chamber, and afterwards, he experienced burning lungs, vomiting, excessive chest pain in his stomach, and acid reflux. Service treatment records reflect that an August 1974 enlistment examination was normal. Subsequent records dated December 1974 indicate that the Veteran complained of chest and abdominal pain. The Veteran was prescribed tetracycline (TCN) antibiotics for his symptoms. Upon separation in January 1975, a clinical evaluation was also normal. The Board notes that the Veteran denied symptoms of pain or pressure in his chest, frequent indigestion, or stomach, liver, or intestinal trouble. In an April 2013 letter and December 2016 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), the Veteran’s treating physicians reported that the Veteran has current diagnoses of GERD, esophageal stricture, and esophageal spasm. The evidence of record reflects that the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in April 2013. The Veteran reported that he was diagnosed with GERD in the 1980s. He further endorsed symptoms of epigastric distress, dysphagia, pyrosis, reflux, nausea, and vomiting. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s GERD is less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran was evaluated for one episode of acute, transient abdominal pain and nausea with no evidence of GERD during service. The Board finds this opinion is entitled to great probative weight, as the VA examiner’s opinion was based on a thorough medical examination and a review of the claims file. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The Veteran’s treating physicians submitted reports on behalf of the Veteran in April 2013 and December 2016, but did not render an opinion as to whether his current GERD disability is related to service. Indeed, no medical professional has opined that GERD is related to service on any basis. The Veteran has asserted his belief in a connection, but has offered no evidence in support of this belief. He is a lay person, and not competent to offer a probative opinion on a nexus in this matter. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). As there is no evidence to support any finding of a nexus between service, and any current GERD, entitlement to the benefit sought is not warranted. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. A. Ong, Associate Counsel