Citation Nr: 20004804 Decision Date: 01/21/20 Archive Date: 01/21/20 DOCKET NO. 18-18 889 DATE: January 21, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for periodontal disease is denied. REFERRED Entitlement to service connection for dental disability for purposes of eligibility for outpatient dental treatment is referred. FINDING OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding the Veteran currently has a dental disorder for which VA compensation may be paid. 2. The Veteran does not have a dental condition resulting from a combat wound or other service trauma. 3. Periodontal disease is not a disability for which compensation benefits are payable. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for the purposes of VA compensation have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.381, 4.150, 17.161. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1980 to November 2002. A claim for service connection for a dental disability is also considered a claim for outpatient dental treatment. Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302 (1993). In dental claims, the Regional Office (RO) adjudicates the claim for service connection and the VA Medical Center (VAMC) adjudicates the claim for outpatient treatment. Because the current issue of entitlement to service connection for a dental disability stems from an adverse determination by the RO, the dental issue addressed herein must be limited to service connection for compensation purposes. An April 2018 letter to the Veteran informed him of the steps needed to initiate a claim for eligibility for dental treatment, but did not refer the claim. Thus, the issue of entitlement to outpatient dental treatment is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further referral to the appropriate VAMC for adjudication. See 38 C.F.R. § 17.161 Entitlement to service connection for periodontal disease The Veteran is claiming service connection for periodontal disease, claiming he developed and was treated for periodontal disease during service. Compensation is only available for certain types of dental and oral conditions, such as impairment of the mandible, loss of a portion of the ramus, and loss of a portion of the maxilla. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not disabilities for compensation purposes, but may be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment. 38 U.S.C. § 1712; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.381, 4.150. To establish entitlement to service connection for loss of a tooth, the Veteran must have sustained a combat wound or other in-service trauma. 38 U.S.C. § 1712; 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(b). The significance of finding that a dental condition is due to in-service trauma is that a veteran will be eligible for VA outpatient dental treatment, without being subject to the usual restrictions of a timely application and one-time treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 17.161(c). The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) show that at entrance, his wisdom teeth numbers 1, 16, 17 and 32 were surgically removed and that his other teeth were in good repair. The Veteran was diagnosed and treated for periodontal disease in November 1996. STRs show that the Veteran was followed and treated for his periodontal disease up September 2002; just prior to separation. There is no history, complaints, or treatment for dental trauma reported by the Veteran during active service. (Continued on the next page)   The Board finds that service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes is not warranted. The service treatment records do not reflect in-service trauma to the Veteran’s mouth. The contemporaneous STRs include his dental records and there is no notation within any of the records of dental or facial trauma. There is no legal entitlement to compensation benefits predicated upon service connection for periodontal disease. Where the law and not the evidence is dispositive, the claim should be denied because of the lack of legal merit or the lack of entitlement under the law. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). Service connection for periodontal disease is denied. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. G. Perkins, 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.