Citation Nr: 18157461 Decision Date: 12/12/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 18-07 908 DATE: December 12, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability, claimed as cervical strain, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s cervical spine disability did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for cervical spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1986 to December 1994. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA). Service Connection Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, the evidence must show: (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 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995). 1. Entitlement to service connection for cervical strain. The Veteran is seeking service connection for his cervical spine disability. He contends that his cervical spine disability is directly related to his service-connected degenerative disc disease affecting the L4-L5 and L5-S1 discs. 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 service connection is not warranted, as the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a cervical spine disability and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. The Veteran’s service treatment records and medical records do indicate that he complained of neck pain on one occasion in June 1989, which he attributed to a motor vehicle accident. However, at the time, he did not present with any clinically identifiable injury. Moreover, it does not appear that these neck symptoms were chronic in nature, as he did not seek treatment for them again during service. Importantly, at his separation physical examination in September 1994, he did not mention any neck symptoms, nor were any clinically observed. Next, the evidence does indicate that a diagnosable cervical spine disability has existed since service. Specifically, a private physician evaluated the Veteran’s back disability on multiple occasions from 2008 to 2015, yet made no note of a cervical spine disability. If the Veteran had a cervical spine disability, the Board would expect the medical provider treating the Veteran’s back disability to at least note a cervical spine issue. The Board acknowledges that in a February 2018 statement, the Veteran asserted that his physician stated that his neck condition is related to his low back condition. The Veteran appears to be citing an October 2016 statement by his physician that the Veteran’s “cervical and lumbar spine” disabilities are related to service. However, immediately above that statement, the physician lists the pertinent diagnoses as disc displacement in the lumbosacral region, low back pain, segmental and somatic dysfunction of the pelvic region, segmental and somatic dysfunction of the thoracic region, and muscle spasm of the back. As a result of these inconsistencies, the Board cannot accept this statement as a diagnosis of a neck disorder per se. Moreover, while the Veteran may be competent to report having pain or soreness in a certain region, the evidentiary record does not reflect any resulting disability or functional impairment, to include his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d. 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (indicating that the term “disability” refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, rather than the underlying cause of the impairment, and pain alone may be a functional impairment). The Board cognizant that the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of cervical spine disability due to his degenerative disc disease affecting L4-5 and L5-S1. However, is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case, nor does he have the medical expertise to render an opinion regarding its potential relationship to his back disability. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence.   Therefore, after reviewing the evidence in this case, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. McGee, Law Clerk