Citation Nr: 20078024 Decision Date: 12/09/20 Archive Date: 12/09/20 DOCKET NO. 18-21 413 DATE: December 9, 2020 ORDER Service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder, to include due to mustard gas exposure is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not sustain a gastrointestinal disorder during any period of active service, Active Duty for Training (ACDUTRA) and/or Inactive Duty for Training (INACDUTRA). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder, to include due to mustard gas exposure are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1955 to January 1956 and had National Guard service from September 1974 to May 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision. The Board remanded the claim in July 2020 in order to obtain outstanding records. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Gastrointestinal Disorder The Veteran contends that he has a gastrointestinal disorder condition due to exposure to mustard gas during service. The Veteran, in a June 2006 Statement in Support of Claim, stated that he was exposed to mustard gas at Parks Air Force Base. The Veteran stated that he was exposed to mustard gas in Basic Training as Parks AFB was a test site for mustard gas. He has stated his exposure was in either 1955 or 1956. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. That determination requires a finding of current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992). Service connection may be granted for a disability diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability is due to disease or injury that was incurred or aggravated in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Additionally, special provisions are in effect for service connection claims based on exposure to mustard gas or lewisite. Full body exposure to nitrogen or sulfur mustard during active military service together with the subsequent development of chronic conjunctivitis, keratitis, corneal opacities, scar formation, or the following cancers: nasopharyngeal; laryngeal; lung (except mesothelioma), or squamous cell carcinoma of the skin is sufficient to establish service connection for that condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.316(a)(1). Full-body exposure to nitrogen, sulfur mustard, or Lewisite during active military service, together with the subsequent development of chronic form of laryngitis, bronchitis, emphysema, asthma, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is sufficient to establish service connection for that condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.316(a)(2). Additionally, full-body exposure to nitrogen mustard during active military service together with the subsequent development of acute nonlymphocytic leukemia is sufficient to establish service connection for that condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.316(a)(3). A Veteran must provide evidence of in-service exposure and a diagnosis of current disability but is relieved of the burden of providing medical evidence of a nexus between the current disability and his in-service exposure. Rather, that nexus is presumed if the other conditions are met, subject to the regulatory exceptions in 38 C.F.R. § 3.316(b). Regarding the Veteran’s allegation of exposure to mustard gas during basic training, an August 1955 service treatment record showed the Veteran to have reported chest pain since going through the tear gas chamber. In that regard, the record shows that the RO contacted the Department of Defense (DoD) to ascertain whether the Veteran was identified in the DoD’s Chemical Biological Warfare Exposure system. In a response received by VA in June 2006, DoD advised that the Veteran was not listed in the DoD’s “mustard gas database.” As VA has taken full and proper measures to corroborate the Veteran’s claimed mustard gas exposure in a manner that is in accordance with the aforementioned guidelines and, as such efforts have not yielded any evidence that the Veteran was exposed to mustard gas, the Board must conclude that the Veteran was not exposed to mustard gas, either during the training in August 1955 or at any other time during his active duty service. While the Veteran is competent to describe the sorts of trainings he was involved in the Board finds the most probative evidence as to whether certain chemicals were or were not used to be the findings of the service department. Furthermore, the record contains no evidence that the Veteran has been diagnosed with any of the enumerated conditions contained in 38 C.F.R. § 3.316(a). Thus, regardless of the Veteran’s contention that his claimed gastrointestinal condition was caused by exposure to mustard gas in service, without a diagnosis of one of the conditions enumerated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.316(a), his claim cannot gain the benefit of a presumptive service connection for mustard gas exposure. Notwithstanding the above, service connection for a gastrointestinal disorder could be warranted if the elements of direct service connection are met. 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; 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). A February 2000 VA medical note shows the Veteran was diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This diagnosis was confirmed in the Veteran’s January 2020 VA examination. Therefore, the Veteran has satisfied the first element of a service connection claim, a current diagnosis. Regarding the second element, an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, the Veteran claims that he was diagnosed with a duodenal ulcer while in-service. However, upon review of the record this ulcer was not noted until September 1982, when the Veteran was not on either ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA while service with the National Guard. Further, the Veteran’s Service Treatment Records are negative for any complaints of a gastrointestinal disorder. Therefore, the Board finds that the second element of a service connection claim has not been met and, as a result, service connection is not warranted. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jorge Barroso, 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.