Citation Nr: 21004660 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-45 989 DATE: January 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a nasal cyst disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a currently diagnosed nasal cyst disorder and has not during the pendency of the appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a nasal cyst disorder have not been 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 on active duty from May 1954 to May 1957 and from October 1963 to September 1967. This appeal was previously denied by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) in March 2018. The Veteran appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), which vacated this decision in a November 2019 Order, and remanded the above issue for further development. The above claim was remanded by the Board in an August 2020 decision which directed for additional development to be completed by the Regional Office (RO). Service Connection The law provides that service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Generally, establishing service connection requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a nasal cyst disorder The Veteran has submitted a claim for service connection for a nasal cyst. He has indicated that he believes that this cyst can be traced back to his active duty service, and specifically to potential exposure to asbestos while in service. A review of the record does not show a current diagnosis of a chronic nasal cyst disorder. While a finding that the Veteran had a disability "at some point during the processing of his claim," can satisfy the service connection requirement for manifestation of current disability, the weight of the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran has been diagnosed with any nasal cyst disorder at any time since he filed his current claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 323 (2007). The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any indications of a chronic cyst disorder. Of note are the Veteran’s March 1966 report of medical history and examination, and September 1967 separation examination which are all silent for any signs, symptoms, treatment, or diagnosis of a cyst or other skin disorder. There are no indications of any treatment for a cyst on or near the nasal area until approximately September 2008. There, a 1-centimeter mucous cyst was found on the floor of his right maxillary sinus. However, later that month, there were no cysts noted in the nasal area, and the Veteran’s nasal area, including the nasal passages, were marked as unremarkable. In April 2009, a doctor noted a furuncle on the side of his nose. Since April 2009, while the Veteran’s medical records show treatment for cysts on other areas of his body, there have been no documented cysts or treatment for cysts in the nasal area. The Veteran was afforded VA examination in November 2020 to evaluate his claimed nasal cyst disorder. The examiner performed an in-person examination and reviewed the Veteran’s entire VA e-folder. The examiner noted that there would be no relationship between the claimed cyst disorder and the Veteran’s sinusitis and/or allergic rhinitis. Overall, the examiner opined that there was no indication of a chronic nasal cyst disorder in the Veteran’s medical history, or at the present time. In the instant case, the probative evidence of record fails to demonstrate a current diagnosis of a nasal cyst disorder. Further, while the Veteran is competent to report having pain or discomfort, the evidentiary record does not reflect any diagnosed nasal cyst disorder. See Sanchez-Benitez, supra (a symptom, without a diagnosed or identifiable underlying malady or condition, does not, in and of itself, constitute a "disability" for which service connection may be granted; "pain alone, without a diagnosed or identifiable underlying malady or condition does not in and of itself constitute a disability for which service connection may be granted"). The Board also notes that veterans are typically competent to report their own symptoms or matters within their personal knowledge. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In addition, laypersons may, in some circumstances, opine on questions of diagnosis and etiology. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (the Board's categorical statement that 'a valid medical opinion' was required to establish nexus, and that a layperson was 'not competent' to provide testimony as to nexus because she was a layperson, conflicts with Jandreau). However, in this case, the Board notes while the Veteran has indicated that he was diagnosed with a nasal cyst by a doctor in 2009, he has also been noted by medical professionals to be a poor historian. Moreover, the preponderance of the clinical evidence, including the extensive medical records in general, and the November 2020 VA examination, specifically, are much more probative than the Veteran's statements, as the examiner considered the breadth of evidence and performed an in-person examination. Finally, the Board recognizes the Veteran’s contentions that he may have been exposed to asbestos while in service leading to his claimed disorder. However, as such a disorder has not been found in the clinical evidence or by the VA examiner, the Board will not evaluate this line of inquiry. The Board notes that the Veteran has not submitted any evidence, including private examination or treatment records to support his claim for service connection for a nasal cyst disorder. The Board emphasizes that Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection for disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in disability. See 38 U.S.C. A. § 1131. See also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Unless there is a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection for the disability. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the Veteran does not currently have a chronic nasal cyst disorder. Since there is no evidence of any current disorder, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection. Therefore, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, the claim for service connection for a nasal cyst disorder, is denied.   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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Q. Hernan, Associate Counsel