Citation Nr: 21003598 Decision Date: 01/22/21 Archive Date: 01/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-20 979 DATE: January 22, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a headache disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active service from August 1966 to August 1970. 2. A current diagnosed headache disorder has not been shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW A headache disorder was not incurred in service or as a result of service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.310 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In a June 2015 rating decision, service connection for headaches, PTSD, and hearing loss was denied. In February 2015, the Veteran filed the required VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement (NOD), to initiate an appeal. In a March 2017 rating decision, service connection was granted for PTSD and bilateral hearing loss. The grant of service connection for PTSD was also addressed in a contemporaneous Statement of the Case (SOC), which also continued the denial of service connection for headaches. The Veteran then filed a VA Form 9 in response to the SOC, appealing both the denial of service connection for headaches and the rating assigned to the PTSD. However, as the SOC was issued in connection with the appeal of the denial of service connection for PTSD, and that claim was granted in full, there was no appeal pending concerning the PTSD that could be perfected in the VA Form 9. Rather, the Veteran needed to file the standardized NOD form with the March 2017 rating decision to initiate an appeal with the rating assigned to his PTSD. The Board acknowledges that the March 2017 rating decision erroneously stated that the appellate rights issued with the rating decision did not apply to the PTSD issue, and that the applicable appellate rights were provided in the SOC. However, after the Veteran submitted the VA Form 9, in June 2017, the RO notified him and his attorney of the requirement that a standardized NOD form be submitted with regard to the PTSD rating. Therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the PTSD rating at this time. Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, 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 on a secondary basis for a disability which is aggravated by, proximately due to, or the result of a service-connected disease or injury under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). In order to establish service connection on a secondary basis, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical evidence establishing a link between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). The Veteran contends that he has a headache disorder due to service and/or his service-connected hearing loss. Therefore, he argues that service connection is warranted on a direct, or in the alternative, a secondary basis. Turning to the medical evidence, the clinical treatment records do not show a current diagnosis of any type of headache, including migraine headaches. First, during an October 2017 sleep consultation, the Veteran stated that he woke up in the morning feeling refreshed without headaches. In a February 2019 treatment note from a routine primary care visit, he denied any headaches. This evidence weighs against the claim as the Veteran specifically denied the occurrence of headaches. Further, there are no clinical treatment notes which show complaints of or a diagnosis of headaches or migraines. At the February 2020 hearing, the Veteran reported that he receives most of his treatment outside of the VA medical system, and that he had been prescribed medication for his headaches by a private provider. The record was held open for 45 days to allow time for relevant treatment notes to be submitted. However, while additional treatment notes were received in the months since the hearing, none of these records pertain to treatment for headaches. Moreover, the VA treatment notes of record contain frequent reconciliation of non-VA medication and none of the medication listed is prescribed for headaches. As such, there is no competent evidence of a current disability for which service connection may be granted. Without a current disability, there can be no entitlement to compensation. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). See also McLain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Accordingly, service connection for headaches is denied. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements, including his February 2020 hearing testimony, that he has a headache disorder caused by service or service-connected disability. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the diagnosis or etiology of any current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Moreover, he did not submit the purported medical records showing a diagnosis of headaches, and contrary to his testimony, the medical evidence of record includes no reference to treatment for headaches, including documentation of any assessment of headaches or offer of headache medication. For these reasons, while the Board recognizes that the Veteran is competent to report head pain and other headache-related symptoms, the Board finds his assertion that he has a diagnosed headache disorder to lack credibility. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records and clinical evidence 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 for 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, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). K. M. Schaefer Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Kokolas, 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.