Citation Nr: 21002286 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 15-19 839 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left wrist disability is granted. Service connection for a right wrist disability is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s left wrist degenerative joint disease was aggravated by his second period of active service. 2. The Veteran’s right wrist degenerative joint disease was aggravated by his second period of active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria to establish service connection for left wrist degenerative joint disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.306 (2019). 2. The criteria to establish service connection for right wrist degenerative joint disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.306 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from May 1975 to October 1975, from November 1990 to June 1991, and from January 2003 to September 2004. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a March 2011 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), that denied service connection for left and right wrist degenerative joint disease. That rating decision was in response of a claim received on April 19, 2010. A Board hearing was held in October 2018. A transcript is of record. In September 2019, the Board remanded the instant issues for development of the record. The issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) was also remanded. While the case was in remand status, the AOJ carried out the Board’s September 2019 grant of service connection for bilateral hip disabilities, a low back disability, and a cervical spine disability. This resulted in a combined schedular evaluation for compensation of 100 percent, effective April 19, 2010. As the Veteran’s schedular evaluation is 100 percent for the entire period on appeal, the issue of entitlement to TDIU is rendered moot. Service Connection The Veteran asserts that he has wrist disabilities that are related to his second period of active duty. Specifically, he has testified that he sustained injuries during that period of active service as the result of physical training and performing pushups. Entitlement to VA compensation may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (wartime service), 1131 (peacetime service); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish a right to compensation for a present 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”-the so-called “nexus” requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Active military, naval, or air service includes any period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty, or any period of inactive duty training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (21), (24) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (a), (d). Every Veteran shall be taken to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted and enrolled for service, except as to defects noted at the time of the examination, acceptance and enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence or medical judgment is such as to warrant a finding that the disease or injury existed before acceptance and enrollment, and was not aggravated by such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1111. The statutory language regarding the presumption of soundness indicates that the presumption applies when a Veteran has been “examined, accepted, and enrolled for service,” and where that examination revealed no “defects, infirmities, or disorders.” 38 U.S.C. § 1111. Thus, the statute requires that there be an examination prior to entry into the period of service on which the claim is based. See Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40, 45 (2010). In the absence of such an examination, there is no basis from which to determine whether the claimant was in sound condition upon entry into that period of service on which the claim is based. See Smith, 24 Vet. App. at 45; see also Crowe, 7 Vet. App. at 245. The Smith Court held that in light of the absence of evidence of an examination made contemporaneous with the Veteran’s entry into service, the presumption of sound condition could not apply. 24 Vet. App. at 46. In this case, service treatment records do not indicate that the Veteran was examined prior to entrance onto active duty in November 1990. Thus, the presumption of soundness is not for application and the Board is left to determine whether the Veteran’s claimed wrist disabilities were as likely as not aggravated by service. See Smith, 24 Vet. App. at 45-47. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Board has determined that service connection for the claimed left and right wrist disabilities is warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board notes that on VA examination in November 2019, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s claimed wrist disabilities were at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. He reasoned that the Veteran’s report of injury performing pushups was consistent and had remained unchanged through the years. He acknowledged that he was unable to find evidence of an original injury in the service treatment records, but stated that the Veteran’s story of injury due to physical training, specifically performing pushups during physical training in the early 1990s, had been consistent. In consideration of the above, the Board has determined that there is at least an approximate balance of evidence with respect to the question of whether the Veteran’s wrist disabilities were aggravated during service. Therefore, having resolved doubt in favor of the Veteran, service connection is granted. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Barone, 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.