Citation Nr: 18154441 Decision Date: 11/29/18 Archive Date: 11/29/18 DOCKET NO. 16-21 809 DATE: November 29, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a disability manifested by memory loss is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from July to November 1985, August to November 2001, and January to March 2006, to include service in the Southwest Asia Theater of operations. 2. A current disability manifested by memory loss is not shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW A disability manifested by memory loss was not incurred in service, to include as due to undiagnosed illness or other qualifying chronic disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1101, 1110, 1117, 1131, 5103(a), 5130A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.317 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION As a procedural matter, the Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. He was scheduled for a hearing in June 2017 but failed to appear. He has not indicated that he wishes to be rescheduled and just cause has not been shown for failing to appeal. Accordingly, the request is withdrawn and there is no bar to proceeding with the appeal. Next, in September 2018, the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with a March 2018 rating decision that denied a claim of service connection for psoriasis. This appeal has been entered in the VACOLS appeals tracking system as an active appeal at the regional office (RO). The RO has fully acknowledged the NOD and is currently in the process of adjudicating the claim. As action by the Board could delay the RO’s action on that appeal, the Board will not take jurisdiction of the issue at this time. Turning to the current claim, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. Service connection may also be granted on a presumptive basis for a Persian Gulf veteran who exhibits objective indications of a qualifying chronic disability, including an undiagnosed illness or a medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illness that is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms, such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and other functional disorders. The disability must manifest either during active service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War, or to a degree of 10 percent or more not later than December 31, 2021. An undiagnosed illness is one which, by history, physical examination, and laboratory tests cannot be attributed to any known clinical diagnosis. 38 U.S.C. § 1117; 38 C.F.R. § 3.317; 81 Fed. Reg. 71, 382-84 (Oct. 17, 2016). The Veteran contends that he has short-term memory loss that is a symptom of an undiagnosed illness resulting from his Persian Gulf service. In order to grant service connection, the evidence must first demonstrate the current existence of the claimed disability. Here, the evidence includes the Veteran’s medical history, to include medical records from VA and private treatment providers detailing the treatment for a multitude of ailments to include arthritis, psoriasis and sleep apnea. The treatment provider routinely listed his ongoing health concerns; however, no mention of memory loss was ever made. In addition, service treatment records (STRs) are negative as to any complaints of memory loss or any other attributable neurological symptomatology. Importantly, he repeatedly denied any memory impairment and was found to be neurologically normal upon examination in August 1991, February 1985, and September 1987. Next, post-service treatment records do not document any ongoing treatment or complaints of memory loss or any psychological disability that would manifest symptoms of memory loss. The record reflects a single instance of memory loss complaints in September 2008 but no chronic disability was diagnosed at that time. Further, since that time, post-service treatment records, while voluminous in nature, were negative for any additional complaints of or diagnoses for memory loss. In a February 2018 VA Gulf War examination, the Veteran did not report any symptoms of memory loss or any attributable neurologic or psychiatric symptomatology. After a full evaluation, the examiner failed to identify an undiagnosed illness resulting from Persian Gulf service and manifesting as memory loss. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support the claim. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that memory loss was caused by service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, he is not competent to diagnose a disorder or offer an opinion as to the etiology of a current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matter involved. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462. Such competent evidence has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined the Veteran during the current appeal and by service records obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the examination report and clinical findings than to his statements. As such, the medical records are more probative than the Veteran’s lay assertions of a current disorder. Service connection may not be granted for a diagnosis of a disability by history. Sanchez-Benitez v. West, 13 Vet. App. 282 (1999). Accordingly, as no current disorder is shown with respect to the above disorder, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not   required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Yacoub, Associate Counsel