Citation Nr: 19115656 Decision Date: 03/04/19 Archive Date: 03/04/19 DOCKET NO. 17-39 561 DATE: March 4, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a mental health condition, secondary to a medical condition, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran has a mental health condition. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a mental health condition, second to a medical condition, have not been met. U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the Marine Corps from June 1997 to June 2001. He seeks service connection for “a mental health condition due to a medical condition.” He did not report to the initial examination scheduled in conjunction with his claim and asserts that he attempted to reschedule an examination in January 2014, but VA has not returned his call or otherwise answered his request. A VA examination is necessary prior to final adjudication of a claim when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or evidence establishing certain diseases manifested during an applicable presumption period for which the veteran qualifies, (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence of record for VA to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(d) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4) (2013); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Here, the Veteran has not provided any evidence to support a diagnosis or symptoms thereof. Treatment records associated with the claims file do not show any treatment for a mental health disability. As such, there is no competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and the Board finds that a remand for an evaluation is not warranted in this case. Service Connection The Veteran contends that he has a “mental health condition, due to a medical condition.” He is service-connected for tinnitus and scars of the right hand. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Furthermore, service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (b). Service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there is no valid claim for service connection; an appellant’s belief that he or she is entitled to some sort of benefit simply because he or she had a disease or injury while on active service is mistaken, as Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability at any point during the claim or appeal period. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Analysis Aside from the Veteran’s assertion that he has a mental disability, he has provided no evidence—medical or lay—that he has such a disability or symptoms thereof. Lay witnesses are competent to provide testimony or statements relating to symptoms or facts of events that the lay witness observed and is within the realm of his or her personal knowledge, but not competent to establish that which would require specialized knowledge or training, such as medical expertise. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Lay evidence may also be competent to establish medical etiology or nexus. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). However, “VA must consider lay evidence but may give it whatever weight it concludes the evidence is entitled to.” Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). In the instant case, the Board finds that the question regarding a diagnosis of a mental health disability and the potential relationship between that diagnosis and other service-connected disabilities to be medically complex in nature. Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462 (2007). Therefore, while the Veteran is competent to describe his symptoms, he cannot, as a layperson, provide competent medical evidence establishing a connection between the two. Moreover, he has not provided any evidence on the same. In view of the above, the weight of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a mental health condition because no evidence has been presented to support that the Veteran has such a diagnosis. Brammer, supra. Accordingly, the claim is denied. Absent a relative balance of the evidence for and against the claim, the evidence is not in equipoise and the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). BETHANY L. BUCK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. M. Hitchcock