Citation Nr: 18160160 Decision Date: 12/27/18 Archive Date: 12/26/18 DOCKET NO. 17-12 979 DATE: December 27, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his GERD was incurred in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for GERD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1985 to August 2007. Service Connection for GERD The Veteran contends that his GERD first developed in service. For the following reasons, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a link between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Both VA and private treatment notes of record demonstrate that the Veteran has been diagnosed with GERD during the pendency of the appeal. Thus, the “current disability” element of his claim has been met. The “in-service incurrence” element has been met as well; the Veteran’s service treatment records reflect that he was treated for dysphagia and esophageal burn in August 2000. The crucial question, therefore, is whether there is a causal link between the Veteran’s in-service symptoms and his current diagnosis. (The Veteran essentially contends that he has dealt with gastrointestinal symptoms continuously since the August 2000 incident.) To that end, the Veteran has submitted numerous lay statements asserting that his GERD symptoms began during service, and have persisted continuously thereafter. He has also submitted statements from fellow servicemembers in support of his claim. One such letter, from E. G., stated that the servicemember had witnessed the Veteran consuming Rolaids and Tums for indigestion on a daily basis from 2003 to 2006. E. G. also stated that on one occasion in 2005, he witnessed the Veteran “grasping his chest in pain after eating barbeque.” Another letter, from a servicemember professing to have some medical background, stated that, after reviewing the record, it was more likely than not that the Veteran’s GERD had been present and continuous since the August 2000 episode. In addition, the Veteran submitted an opinion from his private physician (dated in March 2012), stating that the Veteran “has evidence of esophagitis dating back to August 2000,” and that “[i]n all likelihood this condition has been present and continuous since his episode of August 2000.” The Board further notes that a March 2014 clinical note from a VA gastrointestinal specialist reflects the opinion that the Veteran’s gastric symptoms “appear to have started in 2000, at the time there was concern for possible ‘esophageal burn.’” On review, the Board finds that the evidence of record is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s GERD was incurred in service. As noted above, there is evidence that the Veteran experienced esophageal pathology, including dysphagia, during active service; a post-service diagnosis of GERD; credible lay reports (including corroborating reports from fellow servicemembers) of continuous gastrointestinal symptoms since service; and medical opinions from private and VA health care providers indicating a likely causal link between the Veteran’s in-service symptoms and his current disorder. The Board acknowledges that there is some negative evidence of record—namely, a negative nexus opinion rendered by a VA examiner in July 2013 and service treatment records in which the Veteran denied gastrointestinal distress. However, upon careful review, the Board can find no reason to give this negative evidence more probative weight than the positive evidence of record. With respect to the conflicting medical opinions, in particular, the Board notes that both the positive and negative opinions appear to be logical and consistent with the Veteran’s medical history (the VA examiner simply offered a different interpretation of the facts, placing less weight on the Veteran’s lay reports of continuous symptoms since service). See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (noting that “most of the probative value of a medical opinion lies in its reasoning”). (Continued on the next page)   In sum, the Board finds that the evidence of record is evenly balanced with respect to the Veteran’s claim. Service connection for GERD will therefore be granted. ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Minot, Associate Counsel