Citation Nr: 21001214 Decision Date: 01/07/21 Archive Date: 01/07/21 DOCKET NO. 17-06 061 DATE: January 7, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT A back disability did not have its onset during the Veteran’s active service and is not otherwise etiologically related to such service, and he does not have thoracolumbar spine arthritis that was present to a compensable degree within a year of his separation from active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service in the United States Marines Corps from September 2008 to September 2013. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision issued by the Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in July 2020, at which time the issues currently before the Board were remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for appellate review. The issues of service connection for a right wrist disability and entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability were also remanded by the Board in July 2020. However, in a November 2020 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for his right wrist and left knee disabilities. There is no indication from the record that the Veteran has disagreed with the ratings or effective dates assigned in that decision. Therefore, that decision constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal and the Board has limited its consideration accordingly. Service Connection — Back Disability The Veteran asserts that he has a back disability that is related to his active service. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of a back disability, or symptoms that could be attributed to a later diagnosis of a back disability, while the Veteran was in active service. At his May 2013 separation examination, the Veteran denied experiencing recurrent back pain or any back problem on his report of medical history. A review of the post-service medical evidence of record shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with lumbosacral strain in September 2020. At a September 2020 VA examination, the Veteran reported that his back pain had its onset in service, specifically during training exercises. He stated that the pain had worsened in the past year and endorsed symptoms of stiffness, decreased range of motion, decreased mobility, and decreased endurance. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s back disability was less likely as not incurred in or caused by active service. As rationale, the examiner noted that there was no evidence that the Veteran was treated for any back condition or other medical condition during active service that could have caused the claimed low back disability. The Board finds that the September 2020 VA medical opinion is adequate. In this regard, the examiner thoroughly reviewed and discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Further, there is no medical opinion of record to the contrary. As such, the September 2020 VA medical opinion is the most probative evidence of record. With respect to the Veteran’s current reports that he has experienced back pain since service, the Board notes that the Veteran is generally competent to report when he first experienced symptoms of a back disability. However, once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered, and credibility is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). In weighing credibility, VA may consider interest, bias, inconsistent statements, bad character, internal inconsistency, facial plausibility, self-interest, consistency with other evidence of record, malingering, desire for monetary gain, and demeanor of the witness. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). The Board may weigh the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence against the lay evidence in determining credibility, but the Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 133 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board may not ignore a Veteran’s testimony simply because he is an interested party and stands to gain monetary benefits. However, personal interest may affect the credibility of the evidence. Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991). Here, the Board finds that the Veteran’s statement that he experienced back symptoms since service are not consistent with other evidence of record. Rather, in a report of medical history completed near the completion of service in September 2013 he expressly denied recurrent back pain. Moreover, the current diagnosis is lumbar strain; service connection based solely in continuity of symptomatology is only available for chronic diseases under 38 C.F.R. Section 3.309(a), including arthritis. In the absence of chronic disease, a competent nexus opinion is required to achieve service connection. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for a back disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). ERIC S. LEBOFF Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umez-Eronini, 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.