Citation Nr: 20007243 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/28/20 DOCKET NO. 17-58 977A DATE: January 28, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1964 to August 1968. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that his currently diagnosed back disability developed as a result of a back injury in service. Service treatment records do not show treatment, complaints or a diagnosis related to a back injury in service, and no back disability was diagnosed at the time of the Veteran’s discharge. However, a former military buddy of the Veteran submitted a statement in January 2015, indicating that he observed injuries to the Veteran’s back during active duty, which the Veteran told him occurred as a result of slipping on oil on a ladder stand and hurting his back. He also claimed he encouraged the Veteran to be seen at sick bay for his back injury, but the Veteran refused. Furthermore, the Veteran's DD-214 shows that he served as an aircraft engine mechanic during active duty. Thus, the Board finds that the circumstances and conditions of his service are consistent with his reports of slipping on an oily ladder stand and injuring his back in service, and a low back injury in service is conceded. 38 U.S.C. § 5104 (a). The Veteran has been diagnosed with a current low back disability, including lumbar spondylosis and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Service connection is possible for disabilities first identified after service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (2018). The absence of service treatment records showing in-service evidence of a back disability is not fatal to the claim for service connection. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). Competent evidence of a current back disability, and a medically sound basis for attributing such disability to service, may serve as a basis for a grant of service connection. See Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). There is no medical opinion of record addressing the etiology of the Veteran's current low back disability. Therefore, a remand for a new examination and medical opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran's low back disability is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Updated treatment records should be obtained and added to the claims folder/efolder. 2. Following completion of the above, afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the etiology of any currently diagnosed low back disability. The examiner should review the claims folder and acknowledge such review in the examination report, and any indicated studies should be performed. The examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any currently diagnosed low back disability is etiologically related to active service. The examiner is advised that a low back injury in service is conceded. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report injuries and symptoms, and that his reports must be considered in formulating the requested opinion. If his reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. The examiner is also advised that the absence of evidence in the service treatment records is an insufficient basis, by itself, for a negative opinion. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. (Continued on the next page)   If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner should provide an explanation as to why this is so and note what, if any, additional evidence would permit such an opinion to be made. 3. Then readjudicate the Veteran's claim for service connection for a low back disability. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted, the AOJ should issue a supplemental statement of the case and provide the appropriate opportunity to respond, before returning the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board F. Yankey, 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.