Citation Nr: 21000585 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-61 435 DATE: January 5, 2021 ORDER Service connection for back condition is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his back condition is at least as likely as not related to an in-service back injury. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for back condition are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1981 to August 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran attended a virtual hearing before the undersigned in June 2020. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a disability, a Veteran must show: (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 or aggravated during service. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A December 2013 VA treatment record indicates an assessment of degenerative disc disease. The Board finds this to satisfy the first element of service connection. At his June 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that he injured his back in 1984 when he was hit from behind by a firetruck while responding to a plane crash while aboard the USS America. The Veteran has submitted multiple statements from friends and family who all recount the Veteran telling them the same incident during service. The Veteran also submitted a November 2013 letter from a fellow servicemember who states he was told of the Veteran’s injury from other servicemembers who witnessed the incident. In September 2012, the Veteran submitted photographs of the accident that he resubmitted with color copies in November 2013. The Veteran is competent to testify about the circumstances of service. The Board finds the Veteran’s testimony to be credible and affords it great probative weight. VA has attempted to verify the accident. A request was made to the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System and in response it was found that the deck logs for the USS America from January 1984 to September 1984 were not submitted and the accident could not be verified. Casualty records were available, but they do not mention the accident that the Veteran reported. The Board finds the evidence to be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran suffered an in-service injury. When the evidence is in equipoise, reasonable doubt is resolved in the Veteran’s favor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran suffered a back injury during service and the second element for service connection is satisfied. Turning to the third element, medical nexus, the evidence consists of a June 2020 letter the Veteran submitted. The letter comes from the Veteran’s chiropractor, who after a review of the Veteran’s records and medical history opines that it is as likely as not that the Veteran’s current back condition is due to his in-service military injury of being hit from behind by a firetruck. The Veteran’s chiropractor is competent to provide this opinion, the Board finds them to be credible, and affords the opinion great probative weight. The Board finds the evidence to be in relative equipoise. If the evidence is supportive or is in relative equipoise, then the veteran prevails. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for back condition is granted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, 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.