Citation Nr: A19002022 Decision Date: 10/17/19 Archive Date: 10/17/19 DOCKET NO. 190417-8129 DATE: October 17, 2019 ORDER Service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied. Service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied. Service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied. FINDING OF FACT It is not shown the Veteran has had peripheral neuropathy of her right and left upper extremities or left lower extremity at any time during the pendency of these claims. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria are not met for entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity, left upper extremity, and left lower extremity. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1310, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 2015 to April 2016. In April 2019, the Veteran elected the modernized review system. 84 Fed. Reg. 138, 177 (Jan. 18, 2019) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(d)). She selected the Higher-Level Review lane when opting into the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) review system by submitting a VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement). On the April 2019 VA Form 10182, the Veteran indicated that she was appealing the issues of entitlement to service connection for left hand pain, bilateral upper extremity peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity neuropathy, and sleep disturbances as well as increased rating claims for right knee pain and left wrist pain. However, the issues of left hand pain, right knee pain, left wrist pain, and sleep disturbances were not an appeal of a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) rating decision that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) issued after the Veteran opted into the AMA test program; or an appeal of an initial decision the AOJ issued on or after February 19, 2019; or an appeal of a legacy decision where the AOJ issued a statement of the case (SOC) or supplemental SOC (SSOC) on or after February 19, 2019 and the Veteran responded by electing the AMA system within the time allowed for filing a substantive appeal. In addition, the rating decisions for these issues were more than a year prior to the filing of the VA Form 10182. See December 2017 Rating Decision. Therefore, there is no valid Board appeal as to the issues of entitlement to service connection for left hand pain and sleep disturbances and increased rating claims for right knee pain and left wrist pain. As such, the only issues on appeal, i.e., the only claims that will be addressed in this decision, are of entitlement to service connection for left and right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. Service connection already has been granted for neurological impairment (radiculopathy) affecting the Veteran’s right lower extremity as a complication of, so secondary to, her service-connected lumbosacral strain. Hence, this is why only the neurological impairment in her other, i.e., left lower extremity and both (left and right) upper extremities is still at issue in this appeal. 1. Service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy 2. Service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy 3. Service connection for left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, service connection requires (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or a disease, 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). Service connection also is permissible on a secondary basis for disability that is caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a) and (b). See also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). But as concerning these claims currently at issue, there simply is no evidence of record indicating the Veteran has been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy (or radiculopathy) affecting either her left or right upper extremity or left lower extremity. Therefore, she has failed to establish she has this claimed condition, much less because of her military service. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (with the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim). At the very least, the evidence must show that, at some point during the appeal period, the Veteran has the disability for which benefits are being claimed. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007) (a claim for service connection may be granted if a diagnosis of a chronic disability was made during the pendency of the appeal, even if the most recent medical evidence suggests that the disability has resolved). Here, there simply is no suggestion the Veteran has peripheral neuropathy of her upper extremities and/or left lower extremity or that she began experiencing these conditions during her service or that they are otherwise related or attributable to her service. To the contrary, her post-service treatment records are grossly unremarkable for any diagnoses or treatment of peripheral neuropathy involving her right and left upper extremities and/or left lower extremity. The Veteran has reported having numbness and tingling in her upper extremities (hands and wrists) and lower extremities. Notably, however, a March 2019 VA examination report and August 2019 VA electromyograph (EMG) and nerve conduction studies (NCS) revealed no evidence of peripheral neuropathy. The Veteran is competent to report experiencing these symptoms, but she is not also competent to attribute them to peripheral neuropathy (to make this diagnosis) and, in turn, link it to her military service – either directly or secondarily by way of a service-connected disability. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Moreover, to establish the presence of a “disability” according to the holding in Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), she needs to show that her additionally complained about symptom of pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of her earning capacity, and she has not done that. The VA examination and post-service EMG/NCS results unambiguously show that no such disability presently exists, much less because of the Veteran’s military service, and these findings were based upon objective medical evaluation and diagnostic testing that is specific to making this important determination, also consideration of the Veteran’s reported history and a review of the medical and other evidence in her claims file. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against these claims for service connection for left and right upper extremity and/or left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. At no time relevant to these claims have diagnoses of these disabilities been established. A current disability means a disability shown by competent and credible (i.e., probative) evidence to exist. Chelte v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 268 (1997). See also Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013) (considering the application of McClain on a recent diagnosis even predating the filing of a claim).   Since, for the reasons and bases discussed, the preponderance of the evidence is against these claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and these claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral (left and right) upper extremity and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy are denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Mukherjee The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.