Citation Nr: 18155436 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 10-17 530 DATE: December 4, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a headache disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from November 1975 to April 1980; he had additional service thereafter in the Reserve. 2. A headache disorder has not been shown during the appeal period. CONCLUSION OF LAW A headache disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1112, 1131, 5103(a), 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 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). In addition to the laws and regulations outlined above, service connection may only be granted for a current disability; when a claimed condition is not shown, there may be no grant of service connection. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992) (Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability). “In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim.” See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Veteran filed the claim for service connection for headaches in March 2008. During the appeal period, a headache disorder has not been shown. Specifically, VA examinations dated in December 2013 and August 2018 essentially reflect no current diagnosis of any headache disorder. Further, VA treatment records from March 2011, February 2016, and June 2017 specifically reflect that he denied having or did not have headaches, and VA treatment records from November 2000 to May 2018 are completely silent for complaints of or findings of a headache disorder, as noted by the August 2018 VA examiner. The only mention of headaches in the post-service medical treatment records are two isolated incidents of headaches. Specifically, a February 2008 VA treatment record which notes that the Veteran had a sinus headache for about a week and a July 2014 VA treatment record which notes complaints of neck pain with referred headache. There are no other post-service treatment records noting any complaints of headaches or findings of a headache disorder. In sum, the medical evidence does not reflect any current headache disorder. The Board places significant probative value on the August 2018 VA examination and clinical records. The examination was adequate for evaluation purposes. At the examination the Veteran’s caregiver reported that the Veteran had had cluster headaches for a long period of time; however, the examiner specifically found that a headache disorder was not shown during the appeal period. With respect to the August 2018 examination, the examiner reviewed the claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and conducted a physical examination. There is no indication that the VA examiner was not fully aware of the Veteran’s past medical history or that any relevant fact was misstated. Further, there is no contradicting medical evidence of record. In this regard, the April 2009 VA examination report specifically indicated that there was no documentation in the current treatment records of treatment for headaches. The Board has considered the Veteran contentions (through his caretaker) that the headaches were caused by service (the Veteran is aphasic from a stroke). The Veteran and the caretaker are competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to them through their senses. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, neither the Veteran nor the caretaker are competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of headaches 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 the lay statements. As such, the medical records are more probative than the lay assertions of a connection with service. In sum, after a careful review of the evidence, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable and the appeals are 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 E. Redman, Counsel