Citation Nr: 20006180 Decision Date: 01/24/20 Archive Date: 01/24/20 DOCKET NO. 15-25 892 DATE: January 24, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back disability, for substitution purposes, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s current back disability has not been shown to be at least as likely as not causally related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131,5103, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1942 to April 1962. He died in December 2018 and is survived by his wife, who is the Appellant. In January 2018, his wife submitted a request for substitution to continue the appeal to completion. In March 2019, the RO granted the Appellant’s request for substitution. 38 U.S.C. § 5121A. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. In October 2019, the Appellant testified at a videoconference Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the claims file. Entitlement to service connection for thoracolumbar spine disability. 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 Veteran is seeking service connection for a back disability. He has not reported any specific incident, event, or disease during service. 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. The medical evidence of record shows that the Veteran complained of low back pain in a February 2013. In May 2018, computerized tomography (CT) scan of the lumbar spine demonstrated diffuse degenerative changes with stenosis of the L5 neural foramen on both sides. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b) (2012); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d) (2018). Service treatment records show that the Veteran reported intermittent back pain in the lumbar spinal for past six months. The assessment was loss of some lumbar lordosis—muscle spasm. However, the Veteran’s March 1962 report of medical examination at separation indicated that clinical examination of the Veteran’s lumbar spine was normal. Furthermore, there is also no objective evidence of back pain until approximately decades after the Veteran’s separation from active duty in February 2013. Ultimately, the Veteran had not reported a continuity of any back symptoms since service or any incident, event, or disease during service that could be related to his current back symptoms. Rather, on an October 2013 VA social work note, the Veteran reported that he had never been injured during his 20 years in the Navy. During the October 2019 Board hearing, the Appellant testified that the Veteran experienced back problems only in the last couple years of his life. The absence of any clinical evidence for many years after service weighs the evidence against a finding that the Veteran’s back condition was present in service or in the years between service and his later complaints. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Furthermore, the current record contains no evidence of a nexus between the Veteran’s military service and his back disability. No medical professional has linked the Veteran’s back diagnosis to service. There is no evidence otherwise linking the current disability to service. The Veteran had not reported a continuity of symptomatology beginning in service and there is no other evidence, VA or private, that his back disorder may be related to service. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran was competent to testify as to observable symptoms of back pain, but finds that as a lay person, he did not have the expertise to link the current disability to an in-service incident. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1376-1377; Buchanan, 451 F.3d at 1336. Ultimately, there is no competent medical or lay evidence in support of the Veteran’s claim for service connection. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim of service connection for a back disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the doubt standard of proof does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. J. In, 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.