Citation Nr: 19190799 Decision Date: 12/03/19 Archive Date: 12/03/19 DOCKET NO. 16-18 639 DATE: December 3, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hepatitis C was not incurred during active duty and is not otherwise related to military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1980 to July 1980 and from April 1982 to April 1995, with additional periods of reserve service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2011 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A September 2012 rating decision confirmed the findings of the July 2011 rating decision. Additional evidence was received after the October 2019 supplemental statement of the case, but is not pertinent to the issue decided; therefore, the Board may proceed to a decision without prejudice to the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (2017). In October 2018, the Board remanded this matter for further development. In October 2019, the Veteran and his representative were sent a SSOC and allowed 30 days to submit additional evidence and/or argument. No evidence and/or argument, or a request for more time to make a submission, was received. Thus, the Board will proceed with its adjudication of the appeal. Finally, the Board remanded an appeal for entitlement to an increased rating for residuals of a left wrist flexor tendon injury in January 2019. That appeal has not yet been returned to the Board and adjudication at this time would be premature. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C The Veteran contends that he contracted hepatitis C from air gun inoculations in service. See November 2011 correspondence. At the March 2014 hearing before the decision review officer, the Veteran again related his hepatitis C to air gun injections in service. The Veteran also testified that he never admitted to using intravenous drugs; rather, he snorted or smoked cocaine. Service treatment records do not show a diagnosis of hepatitis C during active duty. The Veteran has not asserted the onset of symptoms in service. The objective medical evidence shows a diagnosis of hepatitis C many years after service. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in May 2019. The examiner completed a Hepatitis Disability Benefits Questionnaire ( DBQ ) and provided a medical opinion in connection with the examination. The Veteran reported receipt of several air gun vaccinations during service and asserted exposure to hepatitis C at that time. The Veteran denied having any symptoms from hepatitis C. The examiner noted that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of hepatitis C, and that risk factors for hepatitis C including intravenous drug use. In the accompanying May 2019 medical opinion, the examiner concluded that it less likely than not that the Veteran contracted hepatitis C due to service. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s medical records showed he was hospitalized from February 28, 2005 to June 8, 2005 with a discharge diagnosis of cocaine, alcohol, cannabis and nicotine dependence. The examiner further noted that the medical records showed the Veteran has a 15-year history of cocaine use, including from snorting, intravenous use and smoking, and review of the claims file reveals the Veteran’s intravenous drug use and intranasal (snorting) drug use after leaving military service. The Board finds that the VA examiner’s opinion is probative as it was based on the examiner’s review of the claim file, and his medical expertise and knowledge as a physician, and was supported with adequate rationale. As such, the Board finds the May 2019 VA examination report probative. Although the examiner noted that the Veteran was first diagnosed with hepatitis C in February 2005, VA records include a positive lab results for hepatitis C in June 2004. This date discrepancy appears to bear no significant impact on the examiner’s overall conclusion. To the extent that the Veteran has denied that he used intravenous drugs, VA medical records reflect that he has occasionally reported intravenous drug use. See August 2004 mental health intake. The Veteran has also been inconsistent in his report of using shared needles. See VA treatment records from June 2007 (reporting no shared needles in nursing assessment) and February 2005 (reporting using shared needles in nursing assessment). Given the Veteran’s inconsistent report use of intravenous drug and shared needles, the Board finds his current assertion that he has not used intravenous drugs not credible. The Board concludes that the evidentiary record thus supports the existence of risk factors for hepatitis C other than air gun inoculations in the Veteran’s medical history. The Veteran has not presented any contrary medical opinion to support a greater likelihood that he contracted hepatitis C through air gun inoculation in service. In support of his contentions, the Veteran has only presented his lay statements on the matter. The Veteran’s lay statements are insufficient evidence in this regard as he is not an epidemiologist or shown to have the medical knowledge required to offer an opinion as to whether hepatitis C exposure occurred during in-service air gun inoculations, or was otherwise related to service. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 438 (2011). The preponderance of the competent, credible evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s hepatitis C having developed in service or is otherwise causally related to service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To the extent that the Veteran engaged in intravenous and intranasal drug use during service, illegal drug use in service is considered willful misconduct. Service connection may not be awarded for disabilities incurred as a result of willful misconduct. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.301. In denying the claim, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim that doctrine is not applicable. Entitlement service connection for hepatitis C is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs 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.