Citation Nr: 20042390 Decision Date: 06/23/20 Archive Date: 06/23/20 DOCKET NO. 18-16 291 DATE: June 23, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for memory impairment is denied. FINDING OF FACT Memory impairment did not have its onset during active service and it not otherwise etiologically related to such service, and was not caused or chronically worsened by a service-connected disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for memory impairment are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from May 1974 to January 1985 and January 1988 to April 1989. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection – Memory Impairment The Veteran contends that he has memory impairment that is related to his active service, to include an in-service head injury. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of memory impairment during the Veteran’s active service. Post-service evidence of record shows that the Veteran has been treated at the VA Medical Center for various disabilities, to include memory impairment. A review of those records shows that in August 2014, the Veteran was seen by rheumatology. At that time, the Veteran reported that he was concerned with memory loss. It was noted that thyroid testing would be completed to rule out hypothyroidism as a cause of the reported memory impairment. A review of VA Medical Center laboratory testing results did not show abnormal thyroid function. In March 2015, the Veteran was seen for several complaints, to include memory issues. At that time, he reported that he had been experiencing difficulty with short-term memory for the prior 6-8 weeks, and that he felt it was related to a 1974 head injury. The examiner notes that the Veteran had not shown memory impairment on a mini-mental status examination (MMSE) and indicated that the reported memory impairment was the possible effect of alcohol abuse on brain function/cognition. The examiner noted that the Veteran was encourage to quite abusing alcohol at that time. In May 2015, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. Upon mental status examination at that time, the Veteran’s memory was noted to be generally intact. The examiner noted that while the Veteran did exhibit some mild memory loss upon testing (scoring 25/30 upon St. Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) testing)), it was not possible to determine the exact cause of the Veteran’s memory impairment. In this regard, the examiner noted that the Veteran was dealing with chronic pain issues, for which he was prescribed medication; the Veteran experienced alcohol abuse problems; and he had sustained a fall in February 2015. The examiner opined that it was less likely as not that the Veteran’s memory problems were associated with his service-connected depressive disorder. In this regard, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s depressive symptoms continued to be mild and there were no significant neurovegetative signs. The examiner noted that, in general, only in case of substantial mood disturbances, were there likely to be some notable impairment in memory. The Board finds that the May 2015 VA medical opinion is adequate. In this regard, the examiner reviewed and discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Further, there is no medical opinion of record to the contrary. As such, the May 2015 VA medical opinion is the most probative evidence of record. The Board notes that the Veteran has alleged that he sustained a head injury while in active service that resulted in his memory impairment. However, a review of the record shows that the Veteran is not service-connected for a head injury. In fact, the Veteran has previously filed a claim for such, and been denied. Therefore, secondary service-connected for memory impairment resulting from a service-connected head injury is not warranted in this case. Further, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran is service-connected for depressive disorder. However, the May 2015 VA examiner found that the Veteran’s very mild memory impairment was not related to his depressive disorder as his symptoms of such were mild and not indicative of memory impairment. Regardless, the rating assigned for mental health disabilities does include a memory impairment component. As such, to the extent that any mild memory loss may be the result of a service-connected psychiatric disability, that symptoms is contemplated by the currently assigned rating and a separate compensable rating for such would be in violation of 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (2019). While the laypersons are competent to report observable symptoms such as memory impairment, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis of memory impairment or a medical opinion linking a diagnosed memory impairment to either active service or a service-connected disability. A diagnosis or medical opinion of that nature would require medical knowledge, training, and expertise that is simply outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis or medical opinion in this case. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for memory impairment is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ivan Franklin 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.