Citation Nr: 18159212 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 17-04 321 DATE: December 19, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT A cervical spine disability did not have its onset during active service and is not related to active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.326 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from August 2000 to May 2004. This matter came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Veteran’s September 2016 notice of disagreement (NOD) and January 2017 VA Form 9 substantive appeal, and the April 2017 appellant’s brief submitted by his representative, assert that his claimed cervical spine disability was incurred in service and that VA has not fulfilled its duty to assist as he was never scheduled for an examination in conjunction with his claim. In this regard, and as discussed further below, the Board finds that the Veteran’s assertions regarding his claimed in-service cervical spine disability lack credibility; moreover, there is no probative evidence that the Veteran’s current cervical spine disability may be associated with his active service. Thus, the claim does not meet the criteria for entitlement to a VA examination. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-82 (2006). Entitlement to Service Connection for a Cervical Spine Disability Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran 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); see also Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999), citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). For certain chronic disorders, including arthritis, service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis if the disease is manifested to a compensable degree within one year following service discharge. Even where service connection cannot be presumed, service connection may still be established on a direct basis. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1137 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability as a result of his active service. As to the first element of a service connection claim, a current disability, the Board finds that post-service September 2014 VA treatment records document a CT scan which showed cervical spine disc disease, specifically mild discogenic degenerative changes and mild spinal canal stenosis of the cervical spine at C6-C7, without significant neural foraminal narrowing. Significantly, however, the probative evidence of record does not otherwise document that cervical spine disc disease had its onset during the one-year period from service discharge in May 2004 and, as such, presumptive service connection for a cervical spine disability is not warranted on that basis. Additionally, regarding the in-service element of a direct service connection claim, the Board is mindful that service treatment records do not document any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a cervical spine disability, including cervical spine arthritis. The Veteran’s July 1999 enlistment examination and his May 2004 separation examination each document normal clinical evaluations of the Veteran’s neck and musculoskeletal system, without any notation of a cervical spine defect or diagnosis. Additionally, the Veteran specifically denied a history of arthritis, swollen or painful joint, or bone/joint deformity within the concurrent Reports of Medical History. In the absence of probative evidence that the Veteran’s claimed disability had its onset during active service, service connection on a direct basis is not warranted. Moreover, there is no probative evidence of a nexus between the Veteran’s current cervical spine disability and his active service. VA treatment records and private treatment records are silent for any indication that the Veteran’s cervical spine disc disease may be associated with his active service. Per a November 2017 VA treatment record, it was noted that the Veteran had no history of neck injury. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements of record; however, to the extent that he asserts that his current cervical spine disability had its onset during active service or is otherwise related to his active service, such statements are of no probative value given the Veteran’s lack of related medical expertise. See Clyburn v. West, 12 Vet. App. 296, 301 (1999) (holding that a veteran is not competent to relate currently diagnosed chondromalacia patellae or degenerative joint disease to the continuous post-service knee symptoms); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 496-97 (1997) (requiring that a veteran present medical nexus evidence relating currently diagnosed arthritis to in-service back injury). Moreover, to the extent that the Veteran asserts that his cervical spine disability first had its onset during active service and has been constant since that time, such statements are inconsistent with other evidence of record, including service treatment records, which show that he specifically denied arthritis, joint, or neck problems upon separation in May 2004. The Veteran completed his May 2004 report of medical history form contemporaneously with the time periods in question, and the Board has no reason to question the accuracy of such report. Additionally, a concurrent May 2004 physical examination did not document any cervical spine disability, including arthritis. Therefore, the Veteran’s assertions of an in-service cervical spine disability lack credibility. Additionally, the Board is mindful that the post-service VA treatment records documenting cervical spine arthritis are dated over 10 years after service discharge; such a lengthy time interval between service and the earliest post-service clinical documentation of the disability is of itself a factor for consideration against a finding that the disability is related to service. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the lack of contemporaneous medical records is one fact the Board can consider and weigh against the other evidence, although the lack of such medical records does not, in and of itself, render the lay evidence not credible); see also Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the passage of many years between discharge from active service and the medical complaint of a claimed disability is one factor to consider as evidence against a claim of service connection).   In conclusion, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. E. BLOWERS Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Chad Johnson, Counsel