Citation Nr: 18159357 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 15-24 956 DATE: December 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition is denied. Entitlement to service connection for chronic rhinitis is denied. Entitlement to service connection for tropical skin rash is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a back condition due to a disease or injury in service, to include specific in-service event, injury, or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a neck condition due to a disease or injury in service, to include specific in-service event, injury, or disease. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a chronic rhinitis due to a disease or injury in service, to include specific in-service event, injury, or disease. 4. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a tropical skin rash due to a disease or injury in service, to include specific in-service event, injury, or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a back condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a neck condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for chronic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a tropical skin rash have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1969 to August 1970. This matter is on appeal from a September 2014 rating decision, which denied entitlement to service connection for a back condition, neck condition, chronic rhinitis, and a tropical skin rash. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The benefit of the doubt rule provides that a veteran will prevail in a case where the positive evidence is in a relative balance with the negative evidence. Therefore, the Veteran prevails in a claim when: (1) the weight of the evidence supports the claim, or (2) when the evidence is in equipoise. It is only when the weight of the evidence is against the claim that the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is denied. The Veteran contends that he has a back condition that is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 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 a back condition, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or that it is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination for his claim for service connection for a back condition. Under McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), in initial service connection claims, the VA must provide a VA medical examination where there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran’s service; and (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim. In this regard, the Board finds that the Veteran has submitted insufficient evidence to indicate that his back condition is related to an event, injury, or disease that occurred in service. Accordingly, the Board finds that no further development of the Veteran’s claims for service connection for a back condition is required. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records does not reflect any complaints, findings, or treatment for any conditions related to a back condition. The Veteran served on active duty from January 1969 to August 1970. An August 1970 report of medical examination reported that the condition of the Veteran’s spine was normal. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 1973. The examination report does not note any problems associated with the Veteran’s back. A December 2014 VA medical health review documented the Veteran’s report of lower back pain. The Veteran described the pain level as 5 out of 10. As previously described, the Veteran’s service treatment records show that the Veteran’s spine was found to be normal at a discharge examination in August 1970. He also failed to report any problems with his neck at a VA examination conducted in November 1973, more than three years after he was discharged from active duty. The earliest evidence of a back condition after his discharge was the Veteran’s report of lower back pain in December 2014, more than forty-four years after the Veteran’s discharge from service. While not dispositive, the passage of so many years between discharge from active service and the objective documentation of a disability is a factor that weighs against a claim for service connection. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Furthermore, there is no medical evidence indicating a link between the Veteran’s back condition and service. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran’s back condition did not have its onset in active service or for many years thereafter. A lay person is competent to address etiology in some limited circumstances in which nexus is obvious merely through lay observation, such as a fall leading to a broken leg. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, however, the record dates the onset of symptoms of a back condition to many years after separation from active service and the question of causation extends beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. As such, the Veteran is not competent to address the etiology of his disability. Based on a review of the foregoing evidence and the applicable laws and regulations, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claims for service connection for a back condition. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, that doctrine is not helpful to this claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Service connection has not been established and the Veteran’s claim for a back condition must be denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition is denied. The Veteran contends that he has a neck condition that is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 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 a neck condition, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or that it is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination for his claim for service connection for a neck condition. However, the Board finds that the Veteran has submitted insufficient evidence to indicate that he has a neck condition that is related to an event, injury, or disease that occurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 79. Accordingly, the Board finds that no further development of the Veteran’s claims for service connection for his neck condition is required. Indeed, in the entirety of the Veteran’s medical record contained in the claims file, there is no statement by any medical professional indicative of the possibility of a nexus between his neck condition and service. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records does not reflect any complaints, findings, or treatment for any conditions related to a neck condition. An August 1970 report of medical examination reported that the condition of the Veteran’s spine was normal. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 1973. The examination report does not note any problems associated with the Veteran’s neck. A December 2014 VA medical record reported that the Veteran had diffuse myalgia and arthralgia and decreased range of motion of the neck. However, no formal diagnosis of a neck condition was rendered. As previously described, the Veteran’s service treatment records show no evidence of treatment for any neck conditions. The Veteran failed to report any problems with his neck at a military examination conducted during the month in which he was discharged in August 1970. He also failed to report any problems with his neck at a VA examination conducted in November 1973, more than three years after he was discharged from active duty. The earliest evidence of the Veteran having a neck condition was the report of the Veteran having a decreased range of motion of the neck in December 2014, more than forty-four years after the Veteran’s discharge from service. While not dispositive, the passage of so many years between discharge from active service and the objective documentation of a disability is a factor that weighs against a claim for service connection. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Furthermore, there is no medical evidence indicating a link between the Veteran’s neck condition and service. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran’s neck condition did not have its onset in active service or for many years thereafter. A lay person is competent to address etiology in some limited circumstances in which nexus is obvious merely through lay observation, such as a fall leading to a broken leg. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, however, the record dates the onset of symptoms of a neck condition to many years after separation from active service and the question of causation extends beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. As such, the Veteran is not competent to address the etiology of his disability. Based on a review of the foregoing evidence and the applicable laws and regulations, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a neck condition. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, that doctrine is not helpful to this claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Service connection has not been established and the Veteran’s claim for a neck condition must be denied. 3. Entitlement to service connection for chronic rhinitis is denied. The Veteran contends that he has chronic rhinitis that is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 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 chronic rhinitis, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or that it is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination for his claim for service connection for chronic rhinitis. However, the Board finds that the Veteran has submitted insufficient evidence to indicate that he has chronic rhinitis that is related to an event, injury, or disease that occurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 79. Accordingly, the Board finds that no further development of the Veteran’s claims for service connection for his chronic rhinitis is required. Indeed, in the entirety of the Veteran’s medical record contained in the claims file, there is no statement by any medical professional indicative of the possibility of a nexus between chronic rhinitis and service. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records does not reflect any complaints, findings, or treatment for any conditions related to a neck condition. An August 1970 report of medical examination reported that the condition of the Veteran’s sinuses was normal. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 1973. The examination report did not note any problems associated with the Veteran’s sinuses. A June 2013 private medical record documented a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis that was to be treated with an antihistamine. As previously described, the Veteran’s service treatment records show no evidence of treatment for chronic rhinitis. The Veteran failed to report any problems with his sinuses at a military examination conducted during the month in which he was discharged in August 1970. He also failed to report any problems with his sinuses at a VA examination conducted in November 1973, more than three years after he was discharged from active duty. The earliest evidence of chronic rhinitis was the Veteran’s diagnosis of allergic rhinitis in June 2013, more than forty-two years after the Veteran’s discharge from service. While not dispositive, the passage of so many years between discharge from active service and the objective documentation of a disability is a factor that weighs against a claim for service connection. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Furthermore, there is no medical evidence indicating a link between the Veteran’s chronic rhinitis and service. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran’s chronic rhinitis did not have its onset in active service or for many years thereafter. A lay person is competent to address etiology in some limited circumstances in which nexus is obvious merely through lay observation, such as a fall leading to a broken leg. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, however, the record dates the onset of symptoms of chronic rhinitis to many years after separation from active service and the question of causation extends beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. As such, the Veteran is not competent to address the etiology of his disability. Based on a review of the foregoing evidence and the applicable laws and regulations, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claims for service connection for chronic rhinitis. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, that doctrine is not helpful to this claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Service connection has not been established and the Veteran’s claim for chronic rhinitis must be denied. 4. Entitlement to service connection for tropical skin rash is denied. The Veteran contends that he has a tropical skin rash that is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 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 a skin rash, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or that it is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination for his claim for service connection for a tropical skin rash. However, the Board finds that the Veteran has submitted insufficient evidence to indicate that he has a tropical skin rash that is related to an event, injury, or disease that occurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 79. Accordingly, the Board finds that no further development of the Veteran’s claims for service connection for tropical skin rash is required. Indeed, in the entirety of the Veteran’s medical record contained in the claims file, there is no statement by any medical professional indicative of the possibility of a nexus between a tropical skin rash and service. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records does not reflect any complaints, findings, or treatment for any conditions related to a tropical skin rash. An August 1970 report of medical examination reported that the condition of the Veteran’s skin was normal. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 1973. The examination report did not note any skin conditions. A February 2011 private medical examination reported that the Veteran complained of a pink rash on his chest that he reportedly had on and off for many years. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with seborrheic dermatitis. As previously described, the Veteran’s service treatment records show no evidence of treatment for a tropical skin rash. The Veteran failed to report any problems with a skin rash at a military examination conducted during the month in which he was discharged in August 1970. He also failed to report any problems with a skin rash at a VA examination conducted in November 1973, more than three years after he was discharged from active duty. The earliest evidence of a skin rash was the Veteran’s report of a pink rash on his chest in February 2011, more than forty years after the Veteran’s discharge from service. While not dispositive, the passage of so many years between discharge from active service and the objective documentation of a disability is a factor that weighs against a claim for service connection. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Furthermore, there is no medical evidence indicating a link between the Veteran’s skin rash and service. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran’s skin rash did not have its onset in active service or for many years thereafter. A lay person is competent to address etiology in some limited circumstances in which nexus is obvious merely through lay observation, such as a fall leading to a broken leg. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, however, the record dates the onset of symptoms of a skin rash to many years after separation from active service and the question of causation extends beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. As such, the Veteran is not competent to address the etiology of his disability. (Continued on the next page)   Based on a review of the foregoing evidence and the applicable laws and regulations, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claims for service connection for a tropical skin rash. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, that doctrine is not helpful to this claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Service connection has not been established and the Veteran’s claim for tropical skin rash must be denied. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Moore, Associate Counsel