Citation Nr: 21002978 Decision Date: 01/19/21 Archive Date: 01/19/21 DOCKET NO. 17-62 302 DATE: January 19, 2021 ORDER Service connection for asbestosis is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from January 1952 to January 1956. 2. A respiratory disorder was not shown in service and is not causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Asbestosis was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In May 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the claims file. In August 2019, the Board remanded the appeal for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted for a condition diagnosed after military discharge provided evidence establishes that the condition was caused by service. Service connection may be granted on this basis for a disability related to asbestos exposure during service if evidence demonstrates that the veteran was actually exposed in service and that a disease usually associated with such exposure resulted. As to a current disorder, as stated in a September 2016 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with asbestosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in 2012. Further, clinical records showed that he was diagnosed with cholelithiasis in 2016, and lung cancer in 2018. Therefore, the first element of service connection is met. As to in-service asbestos exposure, a review of the military personnel records reveals that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty (MOS) was ship’s cook. Personnel records also showed that he served as a gun mount. Further, in an August 2017 statement, he reported that his bed was directly below a heating and air pipe and he had to shake asbestos off his bedding that flew off of the pipe. As there is no evidence to contradict his statements, in-service asbestos exposure is conceded. As to nexus, in an August 2017 VA opinion, the examiner opined that asbestosis was less likely than not incurred in service. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran’s MOS was ship’s cook which had a minimal probability of asbestos exposure. This evidence weighs against the claim. Further, in a September 2019 VA examination, the Veteran reported working in a sheet metal factory for 20 years and being unable to perform physical activity due to his respiratory condition. Upon examination, the examiner opined that asbestosis was less likely than not incurred in service. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran worked in a sheet metal factory for 20 years and that those employed in this line of work had a high risk of asbestos exposure. Moreover, the examiner noted that the Veteran’s MOS were cook and gunman which had a minimal risk of asbestos exposure. Therefore, as working in a sheet metal factory posed a greater risk of asbestos exposure than the Veteran’s MOS of gunman and cook, the examiner concluded that asbestosis was less likely than not incurred in service. This evidence weighs against the claim. There is no contradictory medical evidence of record. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements and testimony that asbestosis is related to service. While he is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses, he is not competent to offer an etiology of this disorder due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examinations obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28. Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ragofsky, Attorney Advisor 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.