Citation Nr: 18159699 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/19/18 DOCKET NO. 16-30 959 DATE: December 19, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left bundle branch block is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s left bundle branch block did not have onset in active service, is not related to his active service, and did not manifest within one year after separation from active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left bundle branch block have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1983 to April 1989 with subsequent service in the Ohio Army National Guard from his separation from the Army in April 1989 until his retirement as a Colonel in June 2012. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2013 Rating Decision (RD) issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with the RD in March 2013. A Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued in May 2016, and the Veteran filed his appeal in June 2016. The Veteran contends that his left bundle branch block had onset during active service. He has submitted lay statements from himself claiming that while he was in active service he was treated for an irregular heartbeat and syncope, symptoms he claims are related to his current diagnosis. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 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’- the so-called ‘nexus’ requirement.” Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). It follows that service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated while performing active duty for training (ACDUTRA), or from injury or covered disease (acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cerebrovascular accident) incurred or aggravated while performing inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA/IDT). 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24), 106, 1131. ACDUTRA is, among other things, full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes or by members of the National Guard of any state. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (c)(1). INACDUTRA/IDT is part-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes or by members of the National Guard of any state. Id. Active service also includes authorized travel to or from such duty or service. 38 U.S.C. § 106 (d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (e). Only service department records can establish if and when a person was serving on active duty, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA. See 38 U.S.C. § 101 ; Venturella v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 340 (1997). The Board notes that the medical records in the claims file indicate that the Veteran has a diagnosis of a left bundle branch block and currently uses a pacemaker. However, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) do not indicate that the Veteran complained of, or was diagnosed with, a cardiac condition during qualifying active service. The Veteran’s March 1989 examination upon separation from active duty did not contain any complaints of heart issues and noted that the Veteran had a normal heart. In February 2010, the date when the Veteran was first diagnosed with a left bundle branch block, service department records show that the Veteran was in INACDUTRA as a member of the Ohio Army National Guard. Therefore, because the Veteran was performing INACDUTRA at the time of the diagnosis of left bundle branch block, which is not a covered disease (acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cerebrovascular accident) for purposes of establishing VA benefits during a period of INACDUTRA, the Veteran is not entitled to service connection for his left bundle branch block. The Board has considered the Veteran’s contention that he was treated for a syncope in February 2012. However, a thorough review of the available evidence shows no record of this treatment. Moreover, even if there were a record of treatment for this incident, the Veteran would be ineligible for service connection for this non-covered disease because he was in INACDUTRA in February 2012. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24), 106, 1131. The Board has also considered the Veteran’s contention that his left bundle branch block is service-connected because he was treated by a physician’s assistant during active duty service from 1983 to 1986 for an irregular heartbeat and syncope that he claims were symptomatic of a left bundle branch block. However, the Veteran’s contention is not consistent with his STRs, which fail to show any record of this treatment. Moreover, the Veteran, as a layperson, is not competent to give a medical opinion on the etiology, as the question of whether an irregular heartbeat or syncope resulted in a left bundle branch block requires medical expertise. As such, the Veteran’s statement is not competent, credible, or probative evidence as to the etiology of his left bundle branch block. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board notes that the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination nor was an opinion obtained for his condition; however, neither an examination nor an opinion is warranted as the duty to assist has not been triggered. See McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4). Although McClendon sets a low bar, that bar has not been met here as there is no indication of a link between the Veteran’s condition and his active service. The Veteran’s STRs contain no evidence of the Veteran’s disability or symptoms that might have led to the Veteran’s disability during active service. The first medical evidence of the Veteran’s left bundle branch block was in February 2010, during a period of INACDUTRA 29 years after separation from active service. The only evidence of a possible connection between the Veteran’s disability and his service are the Veteran’s own broad and conclusory statements that the condition is related to service, and such statements are not sufficient to trigger VA’s obligation to obtain an examination or opinion. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that conclusory lay assertion of nexus is insufficient to entitle claimant to provision of VA medical examination). (Continued on the next page)   The preponderance of evidence is against a finding that there is a nexus between the Veteran’s current left bundle branch block and his active service. In addition, the preponderance of evidence is against a finding that his left bundle branch block manifested itself to a degree of disability of ten percent or more within a year of discharge from service. Therefore, the claim of service connection for left bundle branch block must be denied. There is no reasonable doubt to be resolved as to these issues. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b), 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. JAMES G. REINHART Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Garver, Law Clerk