Citation Nr: 19187026 Decision Date: 11/19/19 Archive Date: 11/19/19 DOCKET NO. 14-29 719 DATE: November 19, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for degenerative disc disease of the thoracolumbar spine is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his degenerative disc disease of the thoracolumbar spine is at least as likely as not related to his duties as an Abrams armor crewman during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for degenerative disc disease of the thoracolumbar spine are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from January 1988 to December 1991. His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Service (DD 214) identified the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) as an Abrams armor crewman. The Veteran’s appeal comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (the Board) from an October 2011 rating decision. In a July 2018 decision, the Board, among other things, denied the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for a thoracolumbar spine disability. The Veteran appealed the Board’s denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court). In June 2019, the Court entered a Joint Motion for Remand that vacated the Board’s decision with respect to the issue of entitlement to service connection for a thoracolumbar spine disorder and remanded it to the Board. That issue is once again before the Board. Entitlement to Service Connection for Degenerative Disc Disease of the Thoracolumbar Spine The Veteran argues that he is entitled to service connection for degenerative disc disease affecting his thoracolumbar spine. He does not recall a specific injury during service. However, he testified a May 2014 hearing that he experienced low back soreness from sitting in a tank gunner seat, sleeping on the tank’s hard surface while in the field, and upon exiting and entering a tank. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of degenerative disc disease and intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) of the thoracolumbar spine. The evidence shows that he served as an Abrams armor crewman, which is sufficient evidence to support his report of experiencing soreness while sitting and sleeping in that tank. Thus, the first two elements of service connection are met. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The record contains conflicting medical opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine disorder. A June 2014 VA examination concluded that the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine disorder was less likely than not due to his duties as an Abrams armor crewman. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran’s complaints of low back pain did not begin until the late 2000s, more than a decade after the Veteran’s separation from active service. The VA examiner could not therefore link the Veteran’s current complaints with degenerative changes to the Veteran’s active service. On the other hand, an October 2017 private opinion from Dr. C.N.B. concludes that it was more likely than not that the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine disorder was due to his active service. Dr. C.N.B. noted the Veteran’s complaints of low back pain in service and reasoned that the cumulative effects of the Veteran’s active service as an Abrams armor crewmember caused his thoracolumbar spine disorder. Neither opinion is more probative than the other, thus the evidence is in equipoise. Accordingly, the Board resolves all doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that service connection for degenerative disc disease of the thoracolumbar spine is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Douglas M. Humphrey, Associate Counsel 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.