Citation Nr: 18153265 Decision Date: 11/27/18 Archive Date: 11/27/18 DOCKET NO. 14-16 259 DATE: November 27, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a left knee disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s left knee disability was incurred during a May 1995 period of inactive duty training. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(22); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6; 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the Army from February 1980 to June 1980. The Veteran also served in the Army National Guard from July 1979 to July 2004. During the period of January 1988 to December 1995, the Veteran was in active duty for training (ACDUTRA) status from August 20, 1994 to September 3, 1994 and May 27, 1995 to June 10, 1995. For all other periods from January 1988 to December 1995 the Veteran was in inactive duty for training status (INACDUTRA). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. In February 2015, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. In July 2016, the Board remanded the claim for additional development. Entitlement to Service Connection for Left Knee Disability The Veteran asserts that his left knee disability is related to an injury he sustained in 1995 during a confirmed period of inactive active duty training. Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In general, service connection requires competent and credible evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Active military service includes any period of ACDUTRA during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty, or any period of INACDUTRA during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(21), (22), (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6. It follows that service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated while performing ACDUTRA, or from injury incurred or aggravated while performing INACTDUTRA. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 106, 1131. ACDUTRA is, among other things, full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes or by members of the National Guard of any state. 38 U.S.C. § 101(22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c)(1). INACDUTRA is part-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes or by members of the National Guard of any state. 38 U.S.C. § 101(22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c)(1). Active service also includes authorized travel to or from such duty or service. 38 U.S.C. § 106(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(e). When a claim for service connection is based only on a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA, there must be evidence that the appellant became disabled as a result of a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during that period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(2), (22), (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a); Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 172 (2010); Acciola v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 320, 324 (2008) (citing Mercado-Martinez v. West, 11 Vet. App. 415, 419 (1998); Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 466, 470 (1995)). In the absence of such evidence, the period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA would not qualify as “active military, naval, or air service,” and the appellant would not qualify as a “veteran” for that period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA service alone. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (2), (24); See Acciola, 22 Vet. App. at 324. Here, the evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of left knee osteoarthritis, and that he has a history of undergoing a left meniscectomy and the removal of a popliteal cyst. As such, the first criterion of service connection, a current disability, is satisfied. Turning next to in-service incurrence of an injury, a clinical record dated on May 10, 1995 reveals that the Veteran sought formal medical treatment for left knee pain three days after completing physical training (during a period of inactive duty training with the National Guard). The record does not note whether the Veteran reported experiencing any specific injury, but does show that he indicated that the training had caused pain and swelling in his left knee. Physical examination at that time revealed tenderness and swelling of the left knee. Thus, an in-service injury is established. The Board accordingly turns to the third and final element required to establish service connection – a causal relationship between the left knee disability and the in-service injury. The evidence in this regard includes a January 1997 letter from the Veteran’s private treating clinician, in which the clinician stated that he had treated the Veteran for his left knee condition since 1995, when he had required arthroscopy for a medial meniscal tear. Notably, this correspondence does not include a formal nexus opinion relating the left knee condition to the injury sustained during the May 1995 period of inactive duty training, and neither does the remainder of the evidence of record. That notwithstanding, the Board finds that the evidence as a whole supports a finding that the left knee disability was incurred coincident with service such that service connection for the left knee disability may be granted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The Board finds the January 1997 letter to be particularly persuasive evidence that the current disability is etiologically related to the injury sustained during the May 1995 period of inactive duty training, as the January 1997 makes clear that the nature of the injury incurred in May 1995 was such that a chronic condition developed, requiring extensive treatment thereafter. This is confirmed by later clinical evidence dated up to the present time which shows that the Veteran continues to receive regular treatment for his left knee condition. As the Veteran’s left knee condition was incurred coincident with service, service connection is warranted. S. C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Temple, Associate Counsel