Citation Nr: 20002533 Decision Date: 01/10/20 Archive Date: 01/10/20 DOCKET NO. 16-48 751 DATE: January 10, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s lung disorder began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or occurrence. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a lung disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1981 to December 1989. The Board previously remanded the case for further development in November 2018. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a lung disorder The Veteran asserts that his lung disorder is related to his exposure to jet fuel in-service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Service treatment records (STRs) reveal that the Veteran received treatment for a persistent cough in May 1987. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with bronchitis. Subsequently, the Veteran was treated with antibiotics and the STRs note that the Veteran’s symptoms began to improve. In March 1989, in an examination shortly before separation, the Veteran did not report any shortness of breath, pain or pressure in chest, or chronic cough. Additionally, his lungs and chest were noted to be normal upon examination. Further, a May 1996 radiological examination results revealed that the Veteran’s lungs were clear with no acute chest pathology. In a March 1999 radiological examination, radiological results revealed no active cardiac or pulmonary disease. Additionally, August 2018 VA outpatient treatment records reveal that the Veteran denied respiratory coughing, wheezing, or shortness of breath. In a September 2019 VA C&P respiratory conditions disability benefits questionnaire, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with restrictive lung disease. He also noted the Veteran’s in-service 1987 diagnosis of bronchitis. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s diagnosis of a restrictive disorder is less likely than not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including exposure to jet fuel fumes. The examiner explained that the Veteran did not have objective evidence of a chronic respiratory condition in service. That the Veteran had normal studies done in-service, including pulmonary function testing (PFTS). The examiner stated that the Veteran’s complaints of a cough in-service were transient, and less likely represented a chronic disability because subsequent assessments were negative for respirator complaints. The examiner noted that the Veteran had a respiratory evaluation in 1987 and was diagnosed with possible bronchitis, however, his physical examination was noted as normal, without wheezing. Thus, the bronchitis incurred in 1987 was a transient illness, that did not result in any chronic residuals. Therefore, the Veteran’s restrictive disorder is therefore less likely than not related to his in-service bronchitis. Ultimately, the examiner opined that the Veteran’s restrictive disorder is related to the Veteran’s weight gain and overweight status. He explained that the Veteran is considered to be overweight/pre-obesity. The examiner cited medical literature that indicated that weight gain and rising body-mass index are associated with decreases in lung volumes, which are reflected by a more restrictive ventilatory pattern on spirometry. The Board also reviewed and carefully considered the Veteran’s lay statements asserting that the severity of his lung disorder is related to his time in-service. Lay people are competent to report on matters observed or within their personal knowledge. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Therefore, the Veteran is competent to provide statements of symptoms which are observable to his senses and there is no reason to doubt his credibility. However, the Board must emphasize that the Veteran is not competent to interpret accurately clinical findings pertaining to a lung disorder as this requires highly specialized knowledge and training. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(1). See also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the September 2019 VA examination. Further, the record does not appear to offer any complaints or treatment for any lung disorders for many years after separation from service. See Mason v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the passage of many years between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is evidence against a claim of service connection). This premise is further evidence by the fact that the Veteran’s initial application for compensation and pension pertaining to his lung disorder was not submitted until February 2016. The Board finds that the onset of the Veteran’s lung disorder less likely than not related to his bronchitis diagnosed in-service and more likely than not related to his weight gain. The Board finds that the examiners opinion is well supported by this submission of medical literature noting a correlation between weight gain and decreased lung volumes. Moreover, the Veteran has not submitted any evidence to refute the examiner’s opinion that his obesity is responsible for his lung disorder. The records for many years after his separation from service reveal clear lungs with no signs of any lung disorder associated with exposure to jet fuels or any other hazardous chemicals in-service. As the claims file lacks evidence of a chronic lung disorder in-service, the Board finds that the onset of the Veteran’s chronic lung disorder is less likely than not related to an injury, event, occurrence, or exposure to jet fumes in-service. Lastly, as a pathology for a lung disorder has not been shown to be related to service, the Board finds that the clinical evidence does not support the Veteran’s contentions. (Continued on the next page)   Based on this evidence, the Board finds service connection is not warranted. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, the Board does not perceive an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the doctrine is not applicable, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2018). Irvin Cannaday Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Elliot Harris, 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.