Citation Nr: 20046744 Decision Date: 07/13/20 Archive Date: 07/13/20 DOCKET NO. 19-22 349 DATE: July 13, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a dental condition (condition of the mouth and upper and lower teeth) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has lost any teeth as a result of loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible from trauma or from disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a dental condition (condition of the mouth and upper and lower teeth) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.381, 4.150 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from January 1959 to January 1963. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2019 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). A transcript of the Veteran’s testimony at a June 2020 videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge is of record. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a dental condition (condition of the mouth and upper and lower teeth) The Veteran seeks service connection for a condition of the mouth and upper and lower teeth. He reports that he had a partial plate at the top of his mouth when he entered service and was sent to a dentist during basic training, which resulted in the removal of all his top teeth and being given dentures. The Veteran also reports that he had tooth ache in his bottom teeth during service and had them removed. The Veteran testified that he had a toothache during basic training and x-ray showed a cavity; he was hospitalized and when he woke up, his teeth were gone. He was later given a plate of teeth. The Veteran also testified that a few months later, he had pain in his bottom teeth and the same thing happened after he sought treatment. He indicated that his gums shrunk after service and that his dentures popped out sometimes while he talked, which was embarrassing. When asked if he sustained any dental trauma, the Veteran testified that he did not recall being hit in the mouth during service, but it was possible. The dental conditions for which service-connected compensation benefits are available are set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Codes 9900-9916. The regulations governing dental claims make a fundamental distinction between “replaceable missing teeth” (see 38 C.F.R. § 3.381 (a)), and teeth lost as a result of loss of substance of body of maxilla or mandible due to trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis, and not loss of the alveolar process as a result of periodontal disease. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.150; Simington v. West, 11 Vet. App. 41, 44 (1998). Absent a demonstration of dental trauma, service connection may be considered solely for the purpose of determining entitlement to dental examinations or outpatient dental treatment. See Woodson v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 352, 254 (1995). Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not compensable disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(a). Service treatment records indicate that at the time of his January 1959 enlistment examination, the Veteran reported severe tooth or gum trouble. It does not appear that his teeth were examined at that time other than a notation of “acceptable” under remarks and additional dental defects and diseases. The Veteran underwent four dental extractions and two alveolectomies between January 1959 and March 1960. His December 1962 discharge examination indicated that all his teeth were missing. There is no evidence from review of his service treatment and dental records that the Veteran lost any teeth as a result of in-service trauma or disease leading to loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible, and the Veteran has not definitively made such an allegation. The Veteran underwent a VA dental and oral conditions examination in April 2018, at which time he was diagnosed with loss of teeth. He reported that he entered boot camp when he was 19 years old. He had some front teeth missing and a partial plate. He was sent to a dentist who took out all his upper teeth and gave him a complete upper denture. He later had a toothache and was told he needed to remove all his bottom teeth. After his bottom teeth were removed, he received an immediate complete lower denture. The examiner noted that the Veteran had all his remaining upper and lower teeth extracted during service and received immediate dentures in 1960 when he was still in service. The examiner was unable to determine why the teeth were extracted. The Board acknowledges that the April 2018 VA examiner provided an opinion that the condition claimed was at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or illness, because the Veteran’s dental records show he had all his remaining upper and lower teeth extracted during service and received immediate dentures in 1960 when he was still in service. However, the criteria for service connection for dental conditions are not met simply by teeth being removed in service. Since the Veteran has not been diagnosed with a dental disability for which service-connected compensation may be granted, namely lost teeth due to loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible from trauma or from disease, the claim for service connection for a dental condition for compensation purposes must be denied. The assertion raised during the hearing that a 19-year-old having all his teeth removed would be a trauma/traumatic experience is acknowledged, but this is not the type of trauma that can be considered in deciding the claim. Since the issue of service connection for dental treatment purposes was raised at the hearing, the Board notes that VA treatment records indicate that the Veteran’s dental treatment status is active. While the Board sympathizes with the Veteran, unfortunately, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and service connection must be denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Van Wambeke, 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.