Citation Nr: 18153923 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 18-47 636 DATE: November 28, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for VA compensation benefits is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a dental disorder for which service-connected compensation is payable. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for VA compensation benefits have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.381, 4.150, 17.161 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from January 1951 to January 1955. A claim for service connection for a dental condition is also considered a claim for VA outpatient dental treatment. Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302, 306 (1993). In dental claims, the RO typically adjudicates the claim for service connection and the VA Medical Center adjudicates the claim for outpatient treatment. As this matter stems from an adverse determination by the RO, the appeal is limited to the issue of service connection for a dental disorder for compensation purposes. Therefore, the claim for service connection for a dental disorder for obtaining VA outpatient dental treatment is REFERRED to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication or additional referral to the applicable VA medical facility, as appropriate. 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(b) (2018). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a dental disability for VA compensation benefits. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131 (2012). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran is seeking compensation for a dental disorder. He contends that during service all of his top teeth and several of his lower teeth were removed. The Veteran alleges that the dentist did not try to save any of the pulled teeth. The dental conditions for which service-connected compensation benefits are available are set under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, DCs 9900-9916. Disability compensation and VA outpatient dental treatment may be provided only for certain specified types of service-connected dental disorders. For other types of service-connected dental disorders, the claimant may receive treatment only and not compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1712; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.381, 4.150, 17.161. Dental disabilities that may be awarded compensable disability ratings are set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. These disabilities include chronic osteomyelitis or osteoradionecrosis of the maxilla or mandible, loss of the mandible, nonunion or malunion of the mandible, loss of the maxilla, nonunion or malunion of the maxilla, limited temporomandibular motion, loss of the ramus, loss of the condyloid or coronoid processes, loss of the hard palate, loss of teeth due to the loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible and where the lost masticatory surface cannot be restored by suitable prosthesis, when the bone loss is a result of trauma or disease but not the result of periodontal disease. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, DCs 9900-9916. The Board notes that the portion of VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities addressing dental and oral conditions was revised effective September 10, 2017. The adjudications of the Veteran’s claim both occurred after the revised deadline. Although it is unclear from the record, the Board presumes that the claim was adjudicated under the new regulations. In any case, as the primary change to the regulations involve benign or malignant neoplasms that are not applicable to the Veteran’s current claim and the other changes involved only clarification of the rating terms, the Board finds that there is no prejudice in adjudicating the Veteran’s dental claim. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.381, treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are to be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 17.161. As noted above, the matter of eligibility for VA dental treatment has been referred to the RO/AMC for appropriate consideration and is not the subject of the Board’s review. Rather, the Board will address whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for VA compensation purposes. Again, the Veteran contends that the removal of his upper teeth and some of his lower teeth during service warrant service connection because the dentist did not attempt to save the teeth. The Veteran’s service treatment records have been determined to be unavailable due to a fire-related incident. Considering the pertinent evidence in light of the above, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a compensable dental disorder. As noted above, replaceable missing teeth and periodontal gum disease may be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.381. That claim is referred to the RO herein. In this case, there is no competent medical or dental evidence of loss of teeth due to loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible due to bone loss through trauma or any other condition on which service connection for compensation purposes could be allowed. The Veteran has not contended that he incurred an injury to the mandible or maxilla. The Board will presume that the claimed teeth were removed during service, as there is no evidence to contradict the Veteran’s claims and he is competent to report the removal of teeth. That said, no lay or medical evidence indicates that the removal of the teeth was the result of the loss of mandible or maxilla. Thus, none of the other DCs, 9900 through 9916, apply in this case. Again, DCs 9917 and 9918 are not applicable because they involve neoplasms, which are not present in this case. While service connection may be established for treatment purposes for replaceable missing teeth and periodontal disease, the regulations listed above clearly prohibit service connection for purposes of compensation where the disability involves replaceable missing teeth or periodontal disease. As the condition is not recognized by the applicable regulations as a disability for which VA compensation may be granted, the Veteran’s claim is not warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.381 (periodontal disease is not a disability for compensation purposes). In addition, there was no evidence of any in-service dental trauma which resulted in residuals, additional loss of teeth, malunion or nonunion of the maxilla, or loss of body of the maxilla or mandible. See generally, VAOPGCPREC 5-97; 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, DCs 9913-9916. Consequently, there is no basis for entitlement to service connection for the Veteran’s claimed dental disorder for compensation purposes. The Board finds that the Veteran’s testimony and statements are credible. The Board is certainly sympathetic to the difficulties the Veteran has experienced with his teeth, but there are no provisions of the law under which entitlement to service connection for compensation purposes may be granted. As noted above, the issue of entitlement to service connection solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment is referred herein. In reaching the conclusions above the Board has again considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); see generally Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed Cir. 2001). J.W. FRANCIS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. J. Houbeck, Counsel