Citation Nr: 18155716 Decision Date: 12/06/18 Archive Date: 12/04/18 DOCKET NO. 16-62 798 DATE: December 6, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a sleep disorder, claimed as difficulty sleeping, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a cognitive disorder, claimed as difficulty thinking, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a cardiac disorder is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for depression is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a sleep disorder. 2. The Veteran does not have a cognitive disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a sleep disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a cognitive disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from September 1977 to September 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions of October 2013, December 2014, and April 2015 of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Service Connection - In General The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a three-element test must be satisfied to establish entitlement to service connection. Specifically, the evidence must show (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service (the “nexus” requirement). Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d. 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ((quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Sleep Disorder & Cognitive Disorder In December 2014, VA received a statement from the Veteran that it construed as claims for service connection for "difficulty sleeping" and "difficulty thinking." The undersigned has scoured the Veteran's extensive treatment records for anything that could be construed to meet either of these vague descriptions. The undersigned has found none. As mentioned above, the first prong of a service connection claim is a current disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Thus, the Board must deny the claims. REASONS FOR REMAND VA treatment records show the Veteran has depression and coronary artery disease (to include a history of myocardial infarctions). The Veteran contends that he was exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune, which in turn caused these conditions. VA has found, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(7), that the Veteran was exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune. While none of these conditions is eligible for presumptive service connection pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(f), VA may still service connect them on a direct basis. The Veteran identified a VA pamphlet showing that veterans exposed to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune are eligible for VA healthcare for specified conditions. While this is separate from disability compensation, the Veteran has suggested, as seen in a December 2015 congressional correspondence, that his depression is among the conditions for which VA offers healthcare due to contaminated water. As such, the undersigned finds that the Veteran merits a compensation examination for this claim. Additionally, VA examined the Veteran for his cardiac claim in November 2012. This examiner erred by finding the Veteran did not have prior myocardial infarctions and expressly did not consider his exposure to contaminated water. Remand is warranted for a new examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his cardiac disorder. The claims file should be provided to the examiner. The examiner should offer the following opinion: Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune caused his cardiac disorder? Why or why not? The examiner is advised that VA presumes the Veteran was exposed. The examiner has no discretion in this matter. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his depression. The claims file should be provided to the examiner. The examiner should offer the following opinion: (Continued on the next page)   Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune caused his depression? Why or why not? The examiner is advised that VA presumes the Veteran was exposed. The examiner has no discretion in this matter. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Sopko, Counsel