Citation Nr: 20028823 Decision Date: 04/24/20 Archive Date: 04/24/20 DOCKET NO. 18-38 314 DATE: April 24, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for asthma is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s asthma began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for asthma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1986 to February 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for asthma. The Veteran contends that his asthmas started in service and has persisted since that time. In a November 2015 Statement, the Veteran wrote that he was diagnosed with an upper respiratory infection, sinusitis, and bronchitis while stationed at Fort Drum in September 1993. He stated that he was given an inhaler to help with breathing and he as continued to use an inhaler since then. Service connection may be granted for a 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). Post-service treatment records indicate the Veteran has a current diagnosis of asthma. See e.g., February 2010 VA treatment record; October 2017 VA treatment record. During an August 2014 primary care follow up appointment, the Veteran stated that he had asthma since 1991 while stationed at Fort Drum after having pneumonia. It was noted that the Veteran was not restricted in his activities and he did not smoke. During a January 2015 primary care follow up appointment, the Veteran complained of pain. It was noted that the Veteran had a history of asthma and now had it with cough and wheezing for three days. The assessment of the complaint was asthma and upper respiratory infection. Service treatment records note the Veteran was treated for difficulty breathing while in service. In September 1993, the complained of shortness of breath. It was noted that the Veteran had bronchitis and he was provided a metered dose inhaler. During a follow up appointment in October 1993, the Veteran stated that he still had trouble breathing but it had improved due to the inhaler. It was noted that the Veteran had pneumonia in his right lower lobe. Based on this evidence, the requirement of a current disability and in-service illness for service connection has been met. The central question is whether there is a causal relationship between the current disability and in the in-service illness. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2015. The Veteran’s diagnosis of asthma was confirmed it was reported to have an onset of 1993. The report indicated that the Veteran gave a history of being diagnosed with asthma at that time. It was noted that the Veteran’s condition required the use of inhaled medications such as inhalational bronchodilator therapy. The examiner reviewed the Veteran’s service medical history and post-service medical history. He opined that it was less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. He reasoned this to be true because, although the Veteran had pneumonia and bronchitis in service, there was no documentation of an asthma diagnosis while in service and the first complaints of asthma after service were in 2006, 12 years after separation. Although the Board believes the Veteran’s contention is sincere that his asthma is related to the breathing trouble in service, there is insufficient evidence of record to support this contention. The lay statements, in the record from the Veteran, are competent evidence as to observable symptomatology, including pain. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007). However, the statements regarding the existence and etiology of the Veteran’s asthma draw medical conclusions, which the Veteran is not qualified to make. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, the existence and etiology of the Veteran’s asthma falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007). The findings of the July 2015 VA examination weigh heavily against the claim. The examination is probative in that it clearly resolves the question of whether the Veteran’s asthma is related to his time in service. The examiner considered the Veteran’s lay statements as well as the Veteran’s medical history. The examiner provided a well-supported rationale for his opinion. The examiner explained that the 1993 bronchitis complained noted in service was not related the current asthma condition, because there was no asthma diagnosis in service and the breathing complaints after service did not start until 2006. There are no other medical opinions of record to contradict this finding. Accordingly, the criteria to award entitlement to service connection for asthma has not been established, either through medical or probative lay evidence. In arriving at the decision to deny the claim, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for asthma, that doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Harris, Attorney Advisor 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.