Citation Nr: 20046532 Decision Date: 07/13/20 Archive Date: 07/13/20 DOCKET NO. 16-33 880 DATE: July 13, 2020 ORDER Service connection for residuals of a tropical disease, to include malaria and dengue fever, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from September 1966 to June 1968, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. 2. Current chronic residuals of a tropical disease, to include malaria and dengue fever, are not shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW Residuals of a tropical disease, to include malaria and dengue fever, were not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.307, 3.309 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In November 2018, the Board remanded the issue for further development. It is now before the Board for adjudication. Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When a veteran is assigned to tropical areas during service, service connection may also be granted for certain tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue fever, when such disease is manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. That an injury or event occurred in service alone is not enough. There must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or event. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Service personnel records confirm service in the Republic of Vietnam, which is considered tropical service. Further, service treatment records (STRs) document that in April 1967, the Veteran was treated for fever, chills, malaise, headaches, and sore throat for 24 hours. The diagnosis was acute tonsillitis, etiology undetermined. A May 2014 letter from Dr. FHT states that the Veteran was his patient in Vietnam in April 1967 with symptoms of dengue fever. Therefore, the element of an in-service incurrence is met. However, the record is silent for any complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of residuals of malaria or dengue fever. A November 2019 VA examination did not find any signs or symptoms of malaria or dengue fever or any chronic residuals associated with them. Blood work was negative and the examiner indicated that the Veteran was treated for an infectious disease in 1967 that resolved without sequalae. Treatment notes are also silent for complaint, treatment, or diagnosis associated with residuals of malaria or dengue fever. Thus, even though the Veteran not only had tropical service, but was also treated for a tropical disease in service, he does not have a current disability for which service connection may be granted. Therefore, the appeal is denied. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that he has a tropical disease that was caused by service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer opinions as to diagnosis and etiology due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examinations obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. M. Schaefer, 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.