Citation Nr: 18158725 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/17/18 DOCKET NO. 15-19 515 DATE: December 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for soft tissue sarcoma, as due to Agent Orange exposure, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of soft tissue sarcoma. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for soft tissue sarcoma, as due to Agent Orange exposure, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.307, 3.309(e). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 14, 1967 to December 13, 1971 September 21, 1973. He is a Veteran of the Vietnam Era. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Louisville, Kentucky. Entitlement to service connection for soft tissue sarcoma, as due to Agent Orange exposure, is denied. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a soft-tissue sarcoma, as related to exposure to herbicide agents such as Agent Orange. 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, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, a Veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (f); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. If a Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, certain disabilities shall be service connected if the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6) are otherwise met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). Soft-tissue sarcoma is a disease for which VA has determined that presumptive service connection based on exposure to herbicides is warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(6)(iii), 3.309(e). However, the evidence of record does not provide any medical basis for finding that the Veteran is currently diagnosed with a soft-tissue sarcoma. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of soft tissue sarcoma. Similarly, private treatment records submitted by the Veteran reflect that “no areas of sarcomatoid differentiation are seen”. See September 2014 Private Treatment Records. In addition, a January 2015 Compensation and Pension examiner noted while examining the Veteran’s kidney conditions that “a soft tissue sarcoma is not identified”. In fact, all of the Veteran’s treatment records, both VA and private, are negative for a diagnosis of a soft-tissue sarcoma of any sort. On the Veteran’s November 2014 VA Form 21-526EZ, he did not notate any facilities where he had received treatment for soft tissue sarcoma. On a November 2014 Lay Statement, while the Veteran asserted that he had been exposed to Agent Orange and wanted to file a claim for soft tissue sarcoma, he never actually alleged that he had it. Further, even the Veteran’s representative admits that the Veteran’s “service treatment records do not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for specific soft-tissue sarcoma”. See December 2018 Appellate Brief. Thus, the Board must conclude that the Veteran does not currently have a diagnosis of soft-tissue sarcoma. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. Brammer, supra. Without competent evidence of a diagnosis of soft-tissue sarcoma, the Board must deny the Veteran’s claim. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (1997) (the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation). The Board notes that the Veteran has not been provided a VA examination for his claim of service connection for a soft-tissue sarcoma. However, the Board concludes that an examination and medical opinion are not needed to fairly decide this claim, as the record contains no competent and credible evidence suggesting that the Veteran has the claimed disability. Even considering the low threshold established in McLendon, the Veteran’s lay statements regarding his asserted condition do not raise to the level necessary to warrant a VA examination. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay assertions. However, although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), the specific issue in this case, the diagnosis and etiology of soft tissue sarcoma, falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (lay persons not competent to diagnose cancer). While the Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of soft tissue sarcoma, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine the etiology of his symptoms. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board has also considered the Veteran’s representative’s assertions that in his case, “the onset of soft-tissue sarcoma could be decades away”. See December 2018 Appellate Brief. The Board is unable to confer VA benefits for claimed conditions that are currently undiagnosed which may or may not occur at some point in the future. The Board also notes that should the Veteran incur an onset of diagnosed soft tissue sarcoma in the future, he would be able to attempt to reopen this claim. (Continued on the next page)   In reaching this conclusion, the Board has also considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for soft tissue sarcoma, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K.Smith, Law Clerk