Citation Nr: 20037596 Decision Date: 06/02/20 Archive Date: 06/02/20 DOCKET NO. 17-58 977A DATE: June 2, 2020 ORDER Service connection for a back disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current back disability due to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a back disability are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1964 to August 1968. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded this case in January 2020 for additional development. The record demonstrates the criteria for service connection for a back disability are not met. Service connection will be granted for a current disability that resulted from an injury, disease, or aggravation, while in active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, service connection requires (1) a present disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the present disability and the in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  The Veteran and witnesses are competent to report symptoms and experiences they can observe. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). VA must give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed Cir. 2009). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57-58 (1990); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Veteran contends he injured his back while in service when he was 19 or 20 years old (1965 to 1966), and he did not report the injury because he believed he could work through it. 11/01/2017, Form 9. Indeed, a former military buddy submitted a statement 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 stated he encouraged the Veteran to report to sickbay for his back injury, but the Veteran refused. 11/13/2019, Buddy / Lay Statement. Lumbar spondylosis was diagnosed in 2011, and lumbar radiculopathy and spinal fusion residuals were diagnosed in 2014. 02/24/2020, C&P Exam. Competent evidence of a current back disability is accordingly found. Service treatment records are negative for any complaints of back or spine injuries, pain, or issues, but include complaints of issues not related to the back or spine. See 02/02/2015, STR–Medical. In an April 2015 VA examination, the Veteran disclosed that, after service, he worked in a trucking company repairing trucks and changing tires for two to three years, in a steel factory for two years, and as a mechanic for 44 years. He also noted he had a business repairing forklifts in the late 1970s to early 1980s, and he also worked on automobiles and recreational equipment such as four-wheelers, snowmobiles, and motorcycles. The Veteran underwent a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his back disability in February 2020. The examiner determined it was not at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current back disability was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury. The examiner specifically notes the Veteran has not provided any documentation of any medical care for his low back until approximately 2003, many years after leaving the military. The examiner also noted the Veteran has worked in labor-type positions after service. He worked as a mechanic for many years, where occupational duties would place stress on his back and place him at risk for spinal disease. It is also documented that the veteran sought care in 2013 for his back after a “fall on cement.” The examiner determined the Veteran’s lumbar spondylosis, degenerative arthritis of the spine, lumbar radiculopathy, and residuals of spinal fusion, to be most likely due to his civilian occupational duties as a mechanic. Consideration of the entire record demonstrates that the weight of the competent and probative evidence is against finding a nexus between the Veteran’s current back disability and his active service. The Veteran’s contention that his back disability is a result of his in-service injury is acknowledged; however, greater weight is placed on the February 2020 medical opinion because the examiner considered the service treatment records, lay statements regarding the Veteran’s in-service injury, and post-service treatment records, which reveal at least 48 years of post-service manual labor and the onset of a back disability in 2003. The examiner also considered the result of diagnostic testing and provided rationale regarding the lack of medical evidence supporting the contention that the in-service fall caused the Veteran’s current back disability. The Board is sympathetic to this appellant and is grateful for the Veteran’s honorable service; however, the evidence in the record does not reach the level of equipoise. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the claim of service connection for a back disability must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. JAMES L. MARCH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Costa, 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.