Citation Nr: 18157435 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 16-63 401 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability (previously a right foot condition, and claimed as foot pain) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye disability, to include glaucoma of the left eye, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, (previously a left foot condition) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a stomach disability (previously a stomach condition) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s right foot disability was not present during his period of active service, and is not otherwise etiologically related to his active service. 2. The Veteran does not have a left eye disability, to include glaucoma of the left eye. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a right foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2018). 2. The criteria for service connection for a left eye disability, to include glaucoma of the left eye, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from March 1982 to October 1989. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2014 and January 2016 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Roanoke, Virginia. Service Connection Claims 1. Right Foot Disability The Veteran maintains that he has a right foot disability that is etiologically related to his active service. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted for a right foot disability. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) are unremarkable for any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses related to a right foot disability. Post-service treatment records indicate the Veteran was diagnosed with arthralgia of the ankle and/or foot. An opinion as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s right foot disability was not provided. The Board acknowledges that a VA medical examination or medical opinion has not been obtained in response to the claim of entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability. VA is obliged to provide a VA examination or obtain a medical opinion when: (1) there is competent evidence that the Veteran has a current disability (or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability), (2) there is evidence establishing that the Veteran suffered an event, injury or disease in service or has a disease or symptoms of a disease within a specified presumptive period, (3) the evidence indicates that the current disability or symptoms may be associated with service or with another service-connected disability, and (4) there is not sufficient medical evidence to make a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4) (2016); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002). In this case, there is no competent evidence of record indicating that the Veteran’s right foot disability is related to active service. Therefore, the Board finds that no VA examination or medical opinion is warranted. While laypersons are competent to report the presence of observable symptoms, the Veteran is not competent to provide an opinion regarding the etiology of a right foot disability, to include arthralgia of the foot. A medical opinion of that nature requires medical testing and expertise that is outside the common knowledge of a layperson. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide an opinion for this claim. In sum, the STRs are silent for diagnoses, complaints of, or treatment for a right foot disability, and provide no indication that the Veteran experience any symptoms that could be associated with a later diagnosis of such while he was in active service. Although the Veteran has a current diagnosis of arthralgia of the foot, there is no competent evidence of record that indicates the current diagnosis may be associated with service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 2. Left Eye Disability The Veteran maintains that he has a left eye disability that is etiologically related to his active service. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted for a left eye disability, to include glaucoma of the left eye. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) are unremarkable for any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses related to any left eye disability. Following his separation from service, there is no indication in the record to suggest that the Veteran sought treatment for a left eye disability at any time during service and since. In fact, the medical evidence of record indicates that, at various times, the Veteran denied having a left eye disability. Specifically, a July 2018 VA treatment record indicates that the Veteran denied having any problems with vision or his ocular health. Based on this evidence, the Board finds that neither a left eye disability, nor manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, was shown during service or since. For a disability to be service connected, it must be present at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during or contemporary to the pendency of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). Here, there is no evidence of record showing that the Veteran has a left eye disability, to include glaucoma of the left eye. Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service-connected benefits to cases where there 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 (1992). Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a left eye disability, to include glaucoma of the left eye. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt provision does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Therefore, the Board concludes that service connection for a left eye disability is not warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND Service Connection Claims – Left Foot and Stomach Disabilities The Board finds that additional development is necessary before the remaining claims on appeal can be decided. The Board notes that the Veteran has consistently maintained that he has left foot and stomach disabilities that are etiologically related to his active service. In that regard, he stated that he complained of and was treated for left foot and stomach disabilities during active service. Indeed, the Veteran’s STRs show that the Veteran was treated for left foot and abdominal pain. Specifically, the Veteran’s STRs show he had left foot pain and left achilles heel pain during active service. Moreover, the Veteran’s STRs show he had recurring epigastric and/or abdominal pain during active service. Post-service treatment records show the Veteran has current diagnoses of arthralgia of the foot and left foot pain. Moreover, the Veteran has reported continuing epigastric pain. In light of the Veteran’s statements and his current diagnoses of arthralgia of the foot and left foot pain, the Board concludes that the Veteran should be afforded VA examinations to determine the nature and etiology of any current left foot and stomach disabilities. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Additionally, current treatment records should be identified and obtained before a decision is made in this case. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. 2. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s left foot disability. The examiner should review the claims file and indicate that review in the report. Any indicated studies should be performed. The examiner should be sure to address the March 1983 and January 1988 service treatment records showing complaints of left foot pain during active service. Based upon the examination results and a review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any left foot disability is etiologically related to service. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA examination by an examiner with sufficient expertise to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s stomach disability. The examiner should review the claims file and indicate that review in the report. Any indicated studies should be performed. The examiner should be sure to address the March 1983 and May 1983 service treatment records showing complaints of epigastric and abdominal pain during active service. Based upon the examination results and a review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any stomach disability is etiologically related to service. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 4. Confirm that the VA examination reports and any opinions provided comport with this remand, and undertake any other development found to be warranted. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Mariah N. Sim, Associate Counsel