Citation Nr: 20005239 Decision Date: 01/22/20 Archive Date: 01/22/20 DOCKET NO. 13-23 097 DATE: January 22, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is dismissed. Service connection for a low back injury is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During the November 2019 Board hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran withdrew his appeal of service connection for hypertension. 2. The probative evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran's low back injury is related to his active duty service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for service connection for a low back injury are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 1968 to September 1972, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. In November 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned at a hearing at the VA Regional Office. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. During the November 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran specifically stated his intention to withdraw the claim of service connection for hypertension and that he understood the consequences of doing so. There remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. 2. Service connection for a low back injury. The Veteran contends that he has a low back injury that was incurred during service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to his active duty service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The Veteran has a current diagnosis, to include disc degeneration of the lumbar spine and chronic low back pain. See, for example, October 2012 and February 2013 VA treatment record. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service Service treatment records are silent for complaints, diagnoses, or any treatment for back pain or injury. The Veteran’s spine was assessed as normal at the August 1972 separation examination. Post-service treatment records reveal that the Veteran has had chronic low back pain for approximately thirty years and indicates various treatment measures including, steroid injections and back surgery in 2000. During the November 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that during service he was trained as an ordinance-man and tasked with building and loading bombs. He reported that his duties as an ordinance-man caused “a lot of stress on the back.” He described one occasion in which he was thrown into a wall onto his back after being hit by a bomb. The Veteran also testified that he injured his back when a fellow servicemember “landed on top of him,” while trying to escape an explosion from a missile attack. He stated that following the injuries, he did not report to sick call and managed things for himself, as that was the culture of service. The Veteran testified to having back pain since sustaining those injuries during service. The Board finds the Veteran's testimony of his back injuries during service to be credible and consistent with the circumstances of his service, despite the absence of any notations in the service treatment records. His military occupational specialty as ordnance warrants consideration of 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (d) and the Board accepts his lay testimony as sufficient proof of service incurrence of a back injury. The Veteran submitted a letter from his private provider, Dr. A.P., which noted that the Veteran has severe multiple levels of disc degeneration on his lumbar spine and will require ongoing treatment for the rest of his life. See May 2014 private letter. Significantly, Dr. A.P. explained that the degeneration and arthritis that the Veteran experiences “can be linked to traumatic injuries suffered many years prior,” including the events the Veteran suffered during his service in Vietnam. The Board finds that the May 2014 private opinion is the most probative evidence of record because it is based on a long-term treating relationship with the Veteran and provides an explanation for the conclusion. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). In addition, there is no competent contrary opinion of record regarding whether the Veteran's back injury is related to service. In sum, the competent and credible evidence shows that the Veteran sustained injuries to his back during service and he has had symptoms since then. Treatment records show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with disc degenerative changes of the lumbar spine and a private provider has related the Veteran’s disability to service. Service connection for a low back injury is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Williams 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.