Citation Nr: 20006776 Decision Date: 01/27/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 15-08 839A DATE:January 27, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar disorder to include degenerative disc disease is denied. FINDING OF FACT A chronic lumbar disorder was not demonstrated inservice, lumbar arthritis was not compensably disabling within a year of the Veteran's discharge from active duty, and the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a lumbar disorder is otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW A chronic lumbar disorder was not incurred or aggravated inservice, and lumbar arthritis may not be presumed to have been so incurred. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1965 to December 1967.   This appeal arises from a rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. Service connection Service connection is established on a direct basis when there is competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Where a veteran served continuously for ninety days or more during a period of war, or during peacetime service after December 31, 1946, and arthritis becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from the date of termination of active duty, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Veteran contends that his lumbar disorder is related to his active duty service. He specifically maintains that he injured his back while on active duty. While admitting that the record shows that he only sought medical care on one occasion, the claimant states that he hurt his back a second time while lifting damaged artillery rounds. He argues that “any doctor will tell you that once you hurt your back muscle or disc any movement done the wrong way will mess up the back again.” He also reports undergoing multiple back surgeries since separation from active duty. Service personnel records show that the appellant served as an armor crewman. As such, the Board concedes that the claimant served in a physically demanding position.   The service treatment records show that the Veteran was treated in May 1967 for low back pain after lifting a heavy trash can. The examiner diagnosed that the claimant had a sprain. At a December 1967 separation examination, however, the claimant denied a history of recurrent back pain, and his spine was clinically evaluated as normal. In June 1994 the appellant was seen at Baptist Medical Center with complaints of back pain of several months’ duration. No reference was made at that time to any connection between then current back pain and the claimant’s active duty service. Records from Trinity Medical also note the appellant’s receipt of care for back pain, however, they do not offer any medical opinion or history linking a back disorder or back pain to service. In December 2005, the appellant underwent lumbar surgery at a private facility. His history was notable for complaints of back pain that had been going on for years. The Veteran was noted to have undergone two back surgeries one in 1996 and another in 2002. In December 2012, the Veteran was provided a VA examination. The examiner noted a history of treatment in December 1967 for a sprain, and no complaints of a back disorder at service separation. The examiner also noted the appellant’s report of chiropractic treatment beginning in 1975, and his subsequent history of spinal surgeries. Following that examination the examiner opined that the Veteran’s current condition was less likely than not related to active service. The rationale provided was that despite the single occurrence in service, the Veteran was able to complete his tour of duty without additional treatment, and there was no complaint of a spine condition at separation. The examiner also found no verified evidence of a back disorder within a reasonable time after service discharge, and that lumbar degenerative joint disease was not diagnosed until the mid-1990’s.   In this case, save for one occasion, the service treatment records are devoid of any complaints, findings or diagnoses pertaining to a lumbar disorder to include low back pain. While the appellant now reports complaints of ongoing low back pain dating back to service, at discharge from active duty the Veteran specifically denied ever having a history of recurrent back pain, and clinical evaluation revealed that the claimant had a normal back at separation. The Board finds that the appellant's statement at separation has greater credibility when compared to a statement offered in support of a claim for monetary benefits. Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (a pecuniary interest may be found to affect the credibility of testimony). Post service there is no competent evidence of compensably disabling lumbar arthritis within one year of the Veteran's separation from active duty. Indeed, the earliest reference to care for back pain is a reference that the claimant began to receive chiropractic care in 1975, i.e., about eight years after the claimant separated from active duty. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The existence of such a temporal gap tends to negate a finding of nexus for service connection based on direct service incurrence.) While the Veteran has continued to regularly report back pain since 1975, there is no competent medical opinion evidence linking any current back disorder to service. Indeed, the only medical opinion evidence addressing the etiology of any current lumbar disorder is the 2012 VA examination report which found that no relationship existed between a current lumbar disorder and service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the most probative evidence is against the claim. Therefore, the doctrine of reasonable doubt is not applicable. In reaching this decision the Board acknowledges the appellant's own belief that his back disorder is related to service. However, as a lay person who is not trained in the field of medicine the claimant is not competent to offer a medical opinion that a low back disorder began in service or is related to an in-service injury. The etiology of his lumbar disorder is medically complex, and offering a medical opinion on its etiology requires specialized training which the appellant is not shown to possess. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The claim is denied. DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ferrando 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.