Citation Nr: 18157112
Decision Date: 12/11/18	Archive Date: 12/11/18

DOCKET NO. 17-48 544
DATE:	December 11, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for a foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis and heel spurs, is denied.
FINDING OF FACT
The preponderance of the evidence weighs against a relationship between the Veteran’s service and his foot disability.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for a foot disability have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1154; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active service from May 1988 to May 2008.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals on appeal from a July 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).
Entitlement to service connection for a foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis and heel spurs
The Veteran contends he has a foot disability related to an injury during 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 diagnoses of plantar fasciitis and heel spurs, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a foot disability 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). 
The Board acknowledges that an October 2013 letter from the Veteran’s private podiatrist opined that a foot disability was at least as likely as not related to a reported in-service injury.  
However, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that an in-service injury occurred.  Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 460-61 (1993).  On this basis, the claim is denied and the Board finds that based on this finding regarding service incurrence, there is not a duty to obtain an additional opinion.
In this regard, while the Veteran is competent to report that he injured his feet during service, this statements as to in-service incurrence are not credible due to internal inconsistency and inconsistency with other evidence in the record.  Specifically, the Veteran stated that around June 2003, he “heard a pop” and had “acute pain” during his physical training test.  He reported he could barely walk and received 3 steroid injections, 6 months of physical therapy, and was given orthotics.  The Veteran’s service treatment records, however, show treatment for several orthopedic injuries, most notably pertaining to his right knee; they are silent for any foot complaints or treatment.  Moreover, the Veteran’s various Reports of Medical History and Reports of Medical Examination indicate normal feet, including at separation.  Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006).  These Reports of Medical History were completed by the Veteran and directly contradict the Veteran’s current contentions.
While the Veteran believes his foot disability is related to an in-service injury, the Board reiterates that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that such an in-service injury occurred.  For this reason, service connection for a foot disability is denied.
 
Nathaniel J. Doan
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Dean, Counsel