Citation Nr: 18156715 Decision Date: 12/10/18 Archive Date: 12/10/18 DOCKET NO. 17-03 188 DATE: December 10, 2018 ORDER Service connection for residuals from a head injury is denied. Service connection for diabetes is denied. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran is not shown to have residuals from a head injury, to include a left eye disorder. 2. The weight of the probative evidence is against a finding that it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed diabetes and acquired psychiatric disorder either began during or were otherwise caused by his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for residuals from a head injury have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. 2. The criteria for service connection for diabetes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. 3. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the Navy from June 1976 to June 1979. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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 or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), where a condition in service is noted but is not, in fact, chronic, or where a diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. The continuity of symptomatology provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) has been interpreted as an alternative to service connection only for the specific chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection may also be established with certain chronic diseases based upon a legal presumption by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more within one year from the date of separation from service. Such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). While the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumption period, it must be shown, by acceptable lay or medical evidence, that there were characteristic manifestations of the disease to the required degree during that time. Residuals from a Head Injury The Veteran filed his service connection claim for residuals from a head injury in October 2014, which was denied by a September 2015 rating decision. He asserts that he has residuals from a head injury, including a left eye disorder, experienced from boxing during his active service. The Veteran’s STRs show he was treated for an eye injury from playing basketball in January 1979, but do not describe any specific boxing injury during service. In addition, the Veteran’s separation physical found the Veteran to be in good health with no abnormalities reported. After his separation from active service, the Veteran’s medical records do not show diagnoses or treatment for residuals from a head injury. While he reported vision symptoms in his left eye, he was not diagnosed with any left eye disability. In VA treatment records, he reported that when he was active duty Navy, he was a boxer, and took a particularly hard blow to the left temple. He asserted that for years he had experienced intermittent throbbing pain to that area, although he stated that he had not had pain to left temple in several years. He requested an MRI of his head to see if there was residual damage, but the MRI did not show any acute intercranial process. Additionally, on the Veteran’s mental health VA examination in 2014, the examiner found no TBI residuals. As such, the record does not show any current residuals from a head injury. While the Veteran contends that he has residuals from a head injury, the diagnosis of residuals from a head injury requires clinical testing and medical expertise, and cannot simply be diagnosed by lay observation alone; and the Veteran is not considered competent (meaning medically qualified by training or experience) to diagnose residuals from a head injury or relate it to any incident in service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, there is then no need to address whether his lay statements in this regard are also credible. Id. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Admittedly, the requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied “when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim...even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary’s adjudication of the claim.” McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). Here, however, the Veteran has not shown by medical evidence the presence of residuals from a head injury. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for residuals from a head injury is denied Diabetes and an Acquired Psychiatric Disorder The Veteran filed his service connection claim for diabetes and an acquired psychiatric disorder in October 2014, which were denied in a September 2015 rating decision. He asserts that his diabetes and acquired psychiatric disorder are due to his active service. The Veteran’s STRs do not show symptoms, treatment, or diagnoses for diabetes or an acquired psychiatric disorder. He had a normal June 1979 separation examination and reported he was in good health. The Veteran’s medical records after his separation from service show he was diagnosed with diabetes in 1998, almost two decades after his separation from active service. He first had a positive depression screen in September 2003 and was diagnosed with depression in February 2007, over two decades after his separation from active service. In September 2014, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for his acquired psychiatric disorder. After reviewing the Veteran’s claims file, interviewing the Veteran, and conducting an examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder was less likely than not due to his active service. The examiner reported that the Veteran’s depression began around 2003 or 2004. Regarding the Veteran’s diabetes, the record contains no evidence of treatment for diabetes in service, the medical evidence does not document any diabetes for the year following his separation from service, and, as such, the Veteran is not entitled to presumptive service connection for diabetes. Therefore, presumptive service connection has not been triggered. While no medical opinion of record was obtained to specifically address the etiology of the Veteran’s diabetes, the Veteran’s claims file is void of any competent evidence even suggesting that his diabetes either began during or was otherwise caused by his active service. Accordingly, the criteria for service connection have not been met for diabetes. That is, the evidence does not show that diabetes was diagnosed in service or within a year of service and the weight of the evidence is against a finding that his current diabetes has existed continuously since service. Therefore, the claim is denied. Regarding the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder, the claims file contained no evidence that his current acquired psychiatric disorder had its onset in service or is otherwise etiologically related to service. The record contains no evidence of any mental health symptoms in service or at discharge, and there is no competent medical opinion which even suggests that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder even may be the result of his active service. The Veteran first had mental health symptoms over two decades after his separation from service. As a lay person, the Veteran is competent to report what comes to him through his senses, but he lacks the medical training and expertise to provide a complex medical opinion, such as diagnosing diabetes or an acquired psychiatric disorder or determining its etiology. See Jandreau, 492 F. 3d 1372. In Jandreau, the Federal Circuit specifically determined that a lay person is not considered competent to answer medically complex questions. Thus, while the Veteran disagrees with the conclusion that his diabetes or acquired psychiatric disorder neither began during, nor was otherwise caused by, his active service, he is not considered competent (meaning medical qualified) to address the etiology of his diabetes or acquired psychiatric disorder. As such, his opinion is insufficient to provide the requisite nexus. Accordingly, the criteria for service connection have not been met for diabetes or an acquired psychiatric disorder. Therefore, the claims are denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Berryman, Counsel