Citation Nr: 21000034 Decision Date: 01/04/21 Archive Date: 01/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-60 490 DATE: January 4, 2021 ORDER Service connection for tinnitus is denied. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for headaches, claimed as migraines, is denied. Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. Service connection for a lung disorder, including linear segmental atelectases on the lower left lung, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis, claimed as a result of exposure to herbicides and/or asbestos, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has a current disability of tinnitus. 2. The tinnitus did not have its onset during service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year, was not continuous after service, and is not otherwise related to active duty service. 3. The Veteran does not have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss according to VA standards at 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. 4. The Veteran does not have a current disability of migraines. 5. The Veteran’s current headaches began after service and are not related to service. 6. The Veteran has a current disability of PTSD. 7. The claimed stressor does not involve combat or fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. 8. An in-service stressor sufficient to cause PTSD has not been verified or corroborated by evidence of record. 9. The Veteran has linear segmental atelectases on the lower left lung. 10. The Veteran was not exposed to an herbicide agent in service. 11. The linear segmental atelectases on the lower left lung are not related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1154, 5103, 5013A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1154, 5103, 5013A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 3. The criteria for service connection for migraines have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1154, 5103, 5013A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 4. The criteria for service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154, 5103, 5013A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304(f), 4.125(a). 5. The criteria for service connection for a lung disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154, 5103, 5013A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the Navy from November 1974 to February 1976 during Peacetime and the Vietnam Era. The appeal for the bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus comes from a rating decision issued in May 2017. The remaining issues are appealed from a rating decision issued June 2016, and a rating decision continuing the denials in November 2016. Service Connection Legal Authority Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. 1. Service connection for tinnitus Tinnitus is a “chronic” disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), as other organic disease of the nervous system; therefore, the presumptive service connection provisions under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for service connection based on “chronic” symptoms in service and “continuous” symptoms since service are applicable. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). For the showing of chronic disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. With chronic disease as such in service, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally, a showing of continuity of symptoms after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). In addition, the law provides that, where a veteran served 90 days or more of active service, and certain chronic diseases such as tinnitus become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year after the date of separation from such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). While the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumption period, it must be shown, by acceptable lay or medical evidence, that there were characteristic manifestations of the disease to the required degree during that time. The Veteran contends that the tinnitus was the result of exposure to loud noise and acoustic trauma during service. See January 2017 Veteran’s Statement. At a March 2017 C&P Examination, the Veteran reported that he experienced tinnitus since 1975. The Veteran has a current disability of tinnitus. At a March 2017 C&P Examination, the Veteran reported that he heard ringing in his head. The Veteran is competent to testify about experiencing tinnitus. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002). The Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was Infantry, Gun Crews, and Seamanship Specialists (DG-9700). See DD 214. The Veteran stated that in this occupation he worked in close proximity to active aircraft. This report is consistent with the circumstances of the Veteran’s service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). For this reason, the Board finds that the Veteran was exposed to loud noise in service. After a review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence shows that tinnitus did not have its onset during service, symptoms of tinnitus were not chronic in service or continuous after service, and tinnitus did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year. The contemporaneous service treatment records do not show any relevant complaints of tinnitus or related ear problems. With regard to the Veteran’s recent report in 2017 that he experienced tinnitus since 1975, the Board finds this recent story to be inconsistent with, and outweighed by, other more contemporaneous evidence, including earlier histories provided by the Veteran, so not to be credible. This history was reported during an examination for compensation purposes and was provided 41 years after separation from service and during the current claim for compensation. The service treatment records, which appear to be complete, reflect that the Veteran was treated for other injuries and disorders during service, but show no complaints of tinnitus. The Veteran presented for treatment of other conditions including a facial rash, an eye infection, and pneumonia. In consideration of the other evidence included in the service treatment records showing complaints and treatment for various disorders, it is likely that any history of injury or complaints of tinnitus would similarly have been mentioned and/or detected during service, that is, any tinnitus would have been recorded in the service treatment records had tinnitus occurred during service; as a result, the absence of any in-service complaint, finding, or reference to treatment for tinnitus or related symptoms weighs against finding in-service tinnitus or chronic symptoms of tinnitus during service. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 438 (2011) (stating that VA may use silence in the service treatment records as evidence contradictory to a veteran’s assertions if the service treatment records appear to be complete and the injury, disease, or symptoms involved would ordinarily have been recorded had they occurred) (Lance, J., concurring); Buczynski v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 221, 224 (2011) (the absence of a notation in a record may only be considered if it is first shown both that the record is complete and also that the fact would have been recorded had it occurred); see also Fed. R. Evid. 803(7) (indicating that the absence of an entry in a record may be evidence against the existence of a fact if such a fact would ordinarily be recorded). The absence of any in-service report of tinnitus or related ear symptoms under the facts of this case is one factor, among other factors considered by the Board including no claim of post-service symptoms until 41 years after service and post-service histories for treatment purposes that do not mention in-service or contemporary tinnitus symptoms. See February 2016 CAPRI Entry. The medical history reported for treatment purposes is especially probative as one would be expected to present a complete and accurate medical history in order to receive efficacious care. After service the Veteran did not file a claim for service connection for tinnitus when seeking service connection for other disorders believed to be related to service. The record includes several rating decisions prior to the May 2017 rating decision on appeal that include adjudications for disorders, none of which include claims for service connection for tinnitus or include even oblique references to an ear injury or symptoms of tinnitus. Given these facts, as well as the absence of any in-service complaint of tinnitus or related symptoms, the Board finds that the Veteran’s recently reported history of in-service tinnitus made pursuant to this claim for compensation is not credible. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the lack of contemporaneous medical records is one fact the Board can consider and weigh against the other evidence, although the lack of such medical records does not, in and of itself, render the lay evidence not credible); Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (recognizing that a lengthy period of absence of medical complaints for condition can be considered as one factor in resolving claim); Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215 (2005) (upholding Board denial of service connection and finding that a veteran’s recent post-service account of in-service events was not credible because the veteran had previously given other histories and theories that did not mention the alleged in-service event, and first “came up with the story” years after service and in connection with the compensation claim). With regard to direct service connection, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence shows that tinnitus, which was first reported decades after service, was not incurred in service and is not related to service. As described above, the service treatment records show no complaints of tinnitus during service. Symptoms of tinnitus do not appear in the record until 41 years after service. The Veteran did not claim that he experienced from tinnitus when reporting medical history until 41 years after service. The Veteran was examined for tinnitus by a VA examiner in March 2017. The VA examiner opined that the tinnitus was less likely than not related to service. For these reasons, the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against the appeal for service connection for tinnitus, and the appeal must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 2. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. Hearing loss is a “chronic” disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), as an organic disease of the nervous system; therefore, the presumptive service connection provisions under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) for service connection based on “chronic” symptoms in service and “continuous” symptoms since service are applicable. The Veteran contends that he has current bilateral hearing loss. He also contends that current hearing loss was the result of exposure to loud noise during service. See January 2017 Veteran’s Statement. After a review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current disability of bilateral hearing loss in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. In March 2017, the Veteran received an audiometric examination at the VA. The VA examiner considered the results to be unreliable. See March 2017 C&P Examination. The test results suggested that the Veteran was attempting to falsify the results by exaggerating the degree of actual hearing loss. See November 2017 Statement of the Case. The record does not contain other audiometric examination results during or immediately prior to the claim period that show current hearing loss disability in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. As such, the record does not show that the Veteran has a current disability of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes (38 C.F.R. § 3.385) during or immediately prior to the claim period. With any claim for service connection (under any theory of entitlement), it is necessary for a current disability to be present. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007) (service connection may be warranted if there was a disability present at any point during the claim period, even if it is not currently present); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013) (when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability immediately prior to a veteran filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency). Thus, in the absence of competent evidence showing a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss, it is unnecessary to address the remaining elements of the claim for service connection. For the reasons described above, the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against the appeal for service connection for hearing loss, and the appeal must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 3. Service connection for headaches The Veteran has contended that the headaches are the result of breathing helicopter and jet fumes, as well as detritus from sanding, chipping, and painting the vessel he served on. See July 2016 Veteran’s Statement. After a review of all the lay and medical evidence, under the facts of this case that include no in-service headaches and post-service onset of headaches, the Veteran is not competent to diagnose migraines. The Veteran is competent to report the presence of headaches at any time, but is not competent to diagnose the headaches as migraines or to testify as to the etiology of the current headaches. Determining whether paint or aircraft fuel fumes causes migraines requires special knowledge of how various toxins and other chemicals interact with the body system. Because the Veteran in this case does not have this specialized knowledge, under the facts of this case, he is not competent to opine as to causation. The weight of the lay and medical shows that tinnitus did not have its onset during service, symptoms of tinnitus were not chronic in service or continuous after service, and tinnitus did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year. The service treatment records, which appear to be complete, reflect that the Veteran was treated for other injuries and disorders during service for which he did seek treatment, including treatment for a headache caused by congestion due to having a cold; however, the remaining service treatment records show no complaints, symptoms, or treatment for migraines. The Veteran presented for treatment of other conditions including a facial rash, an eye infection, and pneumonia, among others. In consideration of the other evidence included in the service treatment records showing complaints and treatment for various disorders, it is likely that any history of injury, complaints, symptoms, or treatment for headaches would similarly have been mentioned and/or detected during service, that is, any migraines would have been recorded in the service treatment records had chronic headaches occurred during service; as a result, the absence of any in-service complaint, finding, or reference to treatment for chronic headaches or related symptoms weighs against finding in-service migraines or chronic symptoms of tinnitus during service. The absence of any in-service report of injury, or complaint, finding, or reference to treatment for migraines or related symptoms under the facts of this case is one factor, among other factors considered by the Board including no claim of post-service symptoms until 39 years after service; post-service histories for treatment purposes that do not mention in-service or contemporary migraines; and that the Veteran filed multiple claims after service and did not claim the disability until November 2015, that weighs against a finding chronic symptoms of headache during service. After service the Veteran did not file a claim for service connection for headaches, including migraines, when seeking service connection for other disorders believed to be related to service. The record includes a rating decision prior to the June 2016 rating decision on appeal that include adjudications for disorders, none of which include claims for service connection for migraines or include even oblique references to headaches or symptoms of migraines. The evidence shows no headaches within a year after separation from service. The Veteran has not made any contentions as to the onset date of headaches. The evidence shows that headaches did not begin during service, were not chronic during service, and were not continuous after separation. With any claim for service connection (under any theory of entitlement), it is necessary for a current disability to be present. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007) (service connection may be warranted if there was a disability present at any point during the claim period, even if it is not currently present); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013) (when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability immediately prior to a veteran filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency). For the reasons described above, the Board finds that a preponderance of the lay and medical evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for migraines. For these reasons, the appeal must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 4. Service connection for PTSD Service connection for PTSD requires the following three elements: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD (presumed to include the adequacy of the PTSD symptomatology and the sufficiency of a claimed in-service stressor in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a)); (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a causal relationship between the current symptomatology and the specific claimed in-service stressor. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In adjudicating a claim for service connection for PTSD, the Board is required to evaluate evidence based on places, types, and circumstances of service, as shown by military records and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. See Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 66 (1993); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The evidence necessary to establish the occurrence of an in-service stressor for PTSD will vary depending on if the veteran “engaged in combat with the enemy.” Id. If a veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy, or the claimed stressors are not related to combat, and the stressor is not related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, then the veteran’s testimony alone is not sufficient to establish the occurrence of the claimed stressors, and his testimony must be corroborated by credible supporting evidence. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997); Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389 (1996); Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163 (1996). Furthermore, service department records must support, and not contradict, the claimant’s testimony regarding non-combat stressors. Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283 (1994). If a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than the Veteran’s service records may corroborate the Veteran’s account of the stressor incident. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Examples of such evidence include, but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. Id. Where a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal assault, the VA will not deny the claim without first advising the claimant that evidence from sources other than the veteran's service records or evidence of behavior changes may constitute credible supporting evidence of the stressor; and allowing him or her the opportunity to furnish this type of evidence or advise VA of potential sources of such evidence. See Gallegos v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 329 (2008). The Board finds that the Veteran has a current disability of PTSD. A May 2016 compensation examination report reflects a diagnosis of PTSD that conforms to the DSM-5 criteria. See May 2016 C&P Examination. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that no in-service stressor sufficient to cause PTSD has been verified or corroborated by evidence of record. The Veteran contends that he experienced three in-service stressors. The Veteran claimed the first stressor was that he was almost thrown overboard by another soldier while serving on the U.S.S. Ranger. The second stressor was that while on the U.S.S. Ranger, he was exposed to munitions being fired at sea. The third stressor was that the Veteran was bullied, including an incident where the Veteran was nearly choked to death by another sailor. See May 2016 C&P Examination. Once the Veteran received the PTSD diagnosis and was informed of the reported stressors leading to the diagnosis, the VA reached out to the Veteran to gather evidence that would corroborate the existence of the stressors. See June 2016 VA Memorandum. However, the Veteran did not provide any further evidence to VA. The Veteran provided a number of personal statements addressing the in-service stressors. In March 2016, during examinations for treatment, the Veteran reported that, while serving on an aircraft carrier, another sailor directed a plane to move near the edge of the deck where the Veteran was standing, causing the Veteran to have to cling tight in order to avoid falling into the Pacific. See March 2016 CAPRI Entry. At a separate examination in March 2016, the Veteran stated that he was bullied and belittled because of his skin color, and that a soldier of a different skin color tried to choke him to death. During the May 2016 C&P Examination, the Veteran claimed that he was almost thrown overboard by another soldier; he was exposed to munitions being fired at sea; and that he was bullied, including an incident where the Veteran was nearly choked to death by another sailor. See May 2016 C&P Examination. In June 2016, the Veteran repeated that a superior non-commissioned officer tried to kill the Veteran by having a parking plane’s “tire rub against the edge of the ship where” the Veteran was at risk of falling into the ocean and having his foot crushed. See June 2016 Veteran’s Statement. During treatment in February 2017, the Veteran reported the following specific trauma incidents: the Veteran was harassed, beaten, and choked by a number of Marines; the Veteran was placed in the brig for reasons he was unclear of; the Veteran was harassed and threatened by a number of Navy officers and sailors; the Veteran was at risk of falling off the ship when he was required to tend to a plane parked near the edge of the ship; the Veteran witnessed many accidents on the flight deck, including seeing people have their legs run over by a variety of vehicles and falling off the side of the ship while tending to planes on the deck. See February 2017 CAPRI Entry. During treatment in March 2017, the Veteran recounted that he witnessed a number of sailors commit suicide. Two days later, Veteran recalled a traumatic event from service where U.S. Marines attacked the Veteran with batons and beat him over the head and body, finally locking him in a cell for a week for committing a disorderly act. A week later, the Veteran claimed that he was suffering from nightmares because of memories from service of seeing another sailor get sucked into a jet engine and “pulverized.” See March 2017 CAPRI Entry. The evidence does not corroborate the Veteran’s contentions regarding reported in-service stressor events. The service treatment records are silent for any treatment for bruising of the throat or body, or physical trauma, or any other kind of injury that is expected when one is physically assaulted with batons or choked. The record does not contain any evidence that the Veteran witnessed any deaths or gruesome injuries. The Veteran’s military service records do indicate that the Veteran was charged, amongst other things, with conspiracy to commit an offense and assault on another recruit in December 1974; with assault in April 1975; and with assault in September 1975. See January 1976 Recommendation for Discharge. The military record contains the Veteran’s contentions that the assaults were not provoked by him, however there is no other evidence in the record (lay statements from other sailors, for example) to support the Veteran’s contentions. See January 1976 Veteran’s Statement. The evidence shows that, after the alleged incidents, the Veteran’s behavior did not change. There is evidence that the Veteran had difficulty with authority, as described above; however, these difficulties spanned the entire period of the Veteran’s service, and there is no noticeable change in behavior. See January 1976 Recommendation for Discharge. The Veteran has himself stated that he has always had difficulty with authority, and that difficulty emerged as early as boot camp. See March 2017 CAPRI Entry. For the reasons described above, the Board finds that a preponderance of the lay and medical evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for PTSD, and the appeal must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 5. Service connection for a lung condition If a veteran is exposed to an herbicide agent during active service and one of the listed diseases manifests after service, the disability is presumed related to the exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). This presumption requires two determinations: (1) herbicide agent exposure, and (2) a diagnosis of a disease associated with herbicide agent exposure. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(i)-(v), 3.309(e). Once the presumption is met, such disability shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If the claimed disability is not one listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), a veteran may still show the disability is directly related to the herbicide agent exposure by providing evidence of a nexus. Combee v. Brown, 34 F. 3d 1039, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In-service herbicide agent exposure is presumed if a veteran has qualifying service in Vietnam, including service on land, in inland waterways, and within the 12-nautical mile territorial sea of Vietnam. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1116(f), 1116A. In this case, the Veteran contends that he has from a lung disorder, claimed as either emphysema or chronic bronchitis. The Veteran contends alternatively that the condition was caused by inhaling asbestos while in-service, from exposure to Agent Orange, or from exposure to the numerous chemicals contained on his vessel. See July 2016 Veteran’s Statement. Regarding the question of current disability, the evidence shows a current disability of linear segmental atelectases on the lower left lung. Atelectases are partial collapses of the lung. See Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary. A VA examination included a chest x-ray. The VA examiner assessed linear segmental atelectatic changes to the left lung. See December 2016 CAPRI Entry. Atelectases are not presumed to be causally related to herbicide agent exposure. Atelectases of the lung are not disabilities that the VA has determined are causally related to herbicide agent exposure. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The weight of the evidence shows that the atelectases did not have their onset during service and are not otherwise related to active duty service or any claimed herbicide agent exposure. The service treatment records, which appear to be complete, reflect that the Veteran was treated for other injuries and disorders during service for which he did seek treatment that include one bronchitis complaint; however, the remaining service treatment records show no complaints, symptoms, or treatment for a lung injury or disease. The Veteran presented for treatment of other conditions including a facial rash, and an eye infection, among others. In consideration of the other evidence included in the service treatment records showing complaints and treatment for various disorders, particularly a single complaint of bronchitis and pneumonia, it is likely that any history of injury, complaints, symptoms, or treatment for a lung injury or disease would similarly have been mentioned and/or detected during service, that is, any lung injury or symptoms would have been recorded in the service treatment records had such injury or symptoms occurred during service; as a result, the absence of any in-service complaint, finding, or reference to treatment for a lung disorder or related symptoms weighs against finding an in-service lung injury or disease or chronic symptoms of lung disorder during service. The absence of any in-service report of injury, or complaint, finding, or reference to treatment for lung disorder or related symptoms under the facts of this case is one factor, among other factors considered by the Board including no claim of post-service symptoms until 39 years after service; post-service histories for treatment purposes that do not mention in-service or contemporary chronic lung disorders, see February 2016 CAPRI Entry & March 2016 CAPRI Entry; and that the Veteran filed a claim after service and did not claim the disability until November 2015, that weighs against a finding an in-service lung injury or disease or chronic symptoms during service. In addition, the Board notes that after service the Veteran did not file a claim for service connection for lung disorder when seeking service connection for other disorders believed to be related to service. The record includes a rating decision prior to the June 2016 rating decision on appeal that include adjudications for disorders, none of which include claims for service connection for lung disorder or include even oblique references to lung injury or symptoms of lung disorder or breathing difficulties. (Continued on the next page)   Given these facts, as well as the absence of any in-service complaint, finding, or reference to treatment for lung disorder or related symptoms, the Board finds that the Veteran's recently reported history of an in-service lung injury and symptoms made pursuant to this claim for compensation is inconsistent with and outweighed by the other lay and medical evidence of record, and is not credible. For these reasons, the Board finds that a preponderance of the lay and medical evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection a left lung disorder, and the appeal must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Charles Plambeck 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.