Citation Nr: 18124342 Decision Date: 08/07/18 Archive Date: 08/06/18 DOCKET NO. 15-26 432 DATE: August 7, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral strain is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s lumbosacral strain was incurred during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral strain have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1999 to September 1999, March 2002 to March 2003, and July 2006 to December 2007, to include service in Iraq from October 2006 to October 2007. Her decorations include the Combat Action Badge. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2013 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran contends that she experienced low back pain in April 2007. She contends that with all the equipment worn and constant movement performed daily, her back pain seemed expected for a combat environment and motrin was issued liberally. Her symptoms included stiffness and muscle spasms. See Veteran’s June 2013 and June 2015 statements. She further contends that she has had continual treatment since that time. See January 2014 notice of disagreement; Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). In cases where a Veteran asserts service connection for injuries or disease incurred or aggravated in combat, 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) and its implementing regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d), are applicable. This statute and regulation ease the evidentiary burden of a combat Veteran by permitting the use, under certain circumstances, of lay evidence. If the Veteran was engaged in combat with the enemy, VA shall accept as sufficient proof of service connection satisfactory lay or other evidence of service incurrence, if the lay or other evidence is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has held that in the case of a combat Veteran not only is the combat injury presumed, but so is the disability due to the in-service combat injury. Reeves v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 988, 998-99 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To establish service connection, however, there must be the evidence of a current disability and a causal relationship between the current disability and the combat injury. Id. (citing Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). There is a formal finding of unavailability of service treatment records from 2006 through 2007. See May 2009 memorandum. When there is evidence that a Veteran’s service treatment records have been lost or destroyed, VA has a heightened duty to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule, to assist a claimant in developing a claim, and to explain its findings and conclusions. Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996); O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369-70 (2005). VA treatment records show a diagnosis of back strain from December 2007 to January 2008. A September 2008 VA treatment record shows back pain that is partially myofascial in nature. The claims file shows private treatment with a chiropractor for low back pain in August 2011. An October 2013 VA general medical examination and November 2013 Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings diagnose lumbosacral strain. A May 2016 VA treatment record shows low back pain followed by a private chiropractor. (Continued on the next page)   The Veteran served in combat and her contention that she injured her back during combat service is consistent with the circumstances, conditions and hardships of that service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b). The Veteran’s contention is corroborated by the medical evidence of record showing back pain as early as December 2007 and she has a current diagnosis of lumbosacral strain. The Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report a back injury during combat service and her account of having this condition since that time is credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Thus, the Board finds that the evidence is not sufficient to rebut the presumption that her lumbosacral strain became manifest during her combat service. See Reeves. Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for lumbosacral strain is warranted. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Samuelson, Counsel