Citation Nr: 21000592 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 15-01 351 DATE: January 5, 2021 ORDER Service connection for Chron’s disease is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his Chron’s disease began during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for Chron’s disease are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 Marine Corps from December 1967 to December 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2012 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a June 2018 videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who is no longer employed by the Board. A transcript is of record. In November 2020, the Board sent the Veteran a letter presenting him with an opportunity for another hearing; however, he has not requested another hearing. In September 2018, the Board denied service connection for Chron’s disease. The Veteran appealed this decision and in a March 2020 Memorandum Decision the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated the Board decision and remanded the matter to the Board. The Veteran contends that his Chron’s disease began during service, or in the alternative that it is related to exposure to Agent Orange. For the following reasons, the Board finds that the Veteran’s Chron’s disease began during active service. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 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). The Veteran’s private treatment records establish that he was diagnosed with Chron’s disease in 1979 and that his Chron’s disease has been present throughout the appeal period. The Board finds this to satisfy the first element for service connection. Turning to the second element for service connection, the evidence consists of the Veteran’s own statements, statements submitted from friends in support of his claim, and the Veteran’s service treatment records. In an April 2013 letter, the Veteran stated that beginning in 1970, when he was in the Republic of Vietnam, he began to have chronic diarrhea along with passing blood and mucous. He was provided medication from his mother to alleviate his symptoms because he avoided going to sick bay to not be labeled a “sick bay commando” which would result in bad details. The Veteran did speak to a Navy corpsman about cramping and was informed that it was normal, along with the bleeding and mucous. The Veteran also stated that he did not seek treatment during service due to a bad experience with an ingrown toenail that a Navy doctor treated by removing the entire toenail. The Veteran also wanted to avoid the possibility of a medical discharge if he reported his symptoms. At discharge, the Veteran was informed that if he reported a serious medical problem his discharge would be delayed. Not wanting this, the Veteran did not report his symptoms and instead followed the advice he was given at discharge to go to VA for all other problems. The Veteran though was unable to receive treatment at the VA because of bad interaction with an employee. At his June 2018 hearing, the Veteran repeated these statements in his testimony. He also testified that during his time in Vietnam the sick bay was a “hooch” with usually a corpsman and a lot of times never a doctor. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records indicate that the Veteran reported diarrhea in January 1968, March 1969, and September 1971. However, these reports are silent for blood and mucous in his stool. The Board notes that there is a gap in the Veteran’s treatment records for the period he was stationed in the Republic of Vietnam. Service personnel records show that the Veteran was stationed in Vietnam from December 1969 to June 1970. His service treatment records show a gap in treatment from November 1969 to September 1970. This supports the Veteran’s statement that he avoided sick bay during his time in Vietnam and that there was rarely a doctor present. Also, the Veteran’s service treatment records include an October 1969 entry for removal of a toenail due to an ingrown nail. This corroborates the Veteran’s statement of having a toenail removed and how this influenced him to avoid seeking treatment during service. The Veteran has also submitted statements from friends and coworkers regarding his symptoms. In a September 2010 letter, a friend who knew the Veteran since the 1960’s stated that he was informed by the Veteran after his service that the Veteran was having a problem with passing blood along with cramps and pain. In an October 2010 letter, another friend who knew the Veteran for over 50 years stated that the Veteran would take frequent trips to the bathroom during work and during carpools to work he would need to pull over often due to the Veteran’s diarrhea. The Veteran is competent to report what occurred in service. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). Considering the Veteran’s consistent statements, that are supported by his service treatment records and statements from friends and coworkers, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements regarding the onset of his symptoms to be credible and affords them great probative weight. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran experienced bloody stool with mucous, frequent diarrhea, and cramping during service. Regarding the third element, the evidence consists of a VA examination and a letter from the doctor who has treated the Veteran and diagnosed him with Chron’s disease. In November 2011, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. The examiner opined it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s Chron’s disease was related to service. In their rationale, the examiner engaged in impermissible fact finding about the Veteran’s credibility by finding there was “no nexus event on active duty” and that the private opinion submitted by the Veteran “cannot be considered for the purposes of VA benefits.” This renders the examination inadequate, and the Board affords it no probative weight. See Sizemore v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 264, 275 (2004). The Veteran submitted a December 2010 letter from the doctor who diagnosed him with Chron’s disease in 1979, and has been treating his Chron’s disease since then. The doctor provides a medical history of the Veteran, recounting the Veteran’s report that in 1970 he began to have frequent diarrhea with blood and mucous along with rectal bleeding. The doctor stated that it is unclear if there is an etiological relationship between the Veteran’s Chron’s disease and Agent Orange, but did find it to be quite clear that the Veteran began having mild Chron’s symptoms in 1970. The Veteran’s doctor is competent to provide this statement, the Board finds him to be credible, and affords his statement great probative weight. (Continued on the next page)   The Board finds the evidence to be in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s Chron’s disease began in service. 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 Chron’s disease 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.