Citation Nr: 18153955
Decision Date: 11/29/18	Archive Date: 11/28/18

DOCKET NO. 15-06 682
DATE:	November 29, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied.
FINDING OF FACT
The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s diabetes began during active service, or is otherwise related to service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for diabetes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active service from August 1991 to October 1999. 
The Veteran claims that he has diabetes that is related to service.  The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.
The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a diagnosis of diabetes, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d).
There are no findings or complaints related to diabetes in the service treatment records.  On enlistment examination in June 1991 and separation examination in August 1999, there were no complaints or findings related to diabetes.  On the related Reports of Medical History completed by the Veteran as part of both examinations, he denied a history of sugar in the urine.  
Post-service treatment records include an October 2013 VA treatment report which noted a diagnosis of diabetes a year and half prior.  There is no evidence of diabetes prior to that date.     
The only other evidence in support of the claim is the Veteran’s lay assertions. The etiology of diabetes is outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person because it involves complex medical issues that go beyond a simple and immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
(Continued on the next page)
 
The competent and credible evidence shows that the Veteran’s diabetes was not incurred in service and is not otherwise related to service. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and service connection for diabetes is not warranted.  38 U.S.C § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).
 
M.E. Larkin
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	K. Marrazza, Associate Counsel