Citation Nr: 20054091 Decision Date: 08/14/20 Archive Date: 08/14/20 DOCKET NO. 16-62 792 DATE: August 14, 2020 ORDER The appeal for service connection for a cardiovascular disorder is dismissed. The appeal for service connection for hypertension is dismissed. The appeal for service connection for diabetes mellitus is dismissed. Service connection for a back disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from December 1985 to January 1986 and April 1986 to August 1986. 2. During a January 2020 hearing before the Board, the Veteran indicated her intent to withdraw her claims for entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. 3. A back disorder was not shown in service, was not shown to a compensable degree within one year of service, and symptoms were not continuous since service; a current back disorder, diagnosed as spondylosis, is not causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (2018). 2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (2018). 3. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.205 (2018). 4. A back disorder was not incurred in service and is not presumed to have been incurred in service. §§ 1131, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Withdrawals The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. The Veteran has withdrawn the appeals for entitlement to service connection for a cardiovascular disorder, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. Specifically, at a January 2020 hearing before the Board, she indicated that she was withdrawing those three issues. Hence, there remains no allegation of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. The Board does not have jurisdiction to review these appeals and they are dismissed.   Service Connection for Back Disorder 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). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. Turning to the evidence, the medical treatment records show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with spondylosis. As such, a current disorder has been shown and the first element of service connection has been met. As to in-service incurrence, the Veteran contends that she injured her back in April 2002 during service when loading and unloading heavy equipment into vehicles; however, the service treatment records (STRs) do not reflect complaints of or treatment for a back disorder during service. There are no medical records or line of duty determinations which show the occurrence of this injury in 2002. Further weighing against the claim, a December 1996 enlistment examination for the Army Reserves specifically indicated that the Veteran did not have recurrent back pain after her periods of active service. As such, the STRs do not support the in-service incurrence of a back disorder during active service. Therefore, the evidence does not support service connection on a direct basis. Next, presumptive service connection for spondylosis under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) will be considered. While spondylosis has been shown, it did not manifest to a compensable degree in service or within a presumptive period, and continuity of symptomatology has not been established.    As noted, the STRs do not show any complaints of or treatment for the lumbar spine during active service. Further, spondylosis was not shown by X-ray until 2002. As such, spondylitic changes did not manifest to a compensable degree in service or within the one-year presumptive period.    Additionally, continuity of symptomatology has not been established. The medical evidence shows that the Veteran did not complain of back pain until 2002, approximately 20 years after separation from service. Further, a December 1996 examination during a period of Reserve service reflected no complaints of recurrent back pain. The absence of complaints related to back pain for many years after separation from service weighs against continuity of symptomatology. As such, the medical evidence does not support service connection on a presumptive basis. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that her disorder was caused by service. She is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to her through her senses. However, she is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of her current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matter 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 her 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 T. Kokolas, Associate 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.