Citation Nr: 21005085 Decision Date: 01/28/21 Archive Date: 01/28/21 DOCKET NO. 14-17 542 DATE: January 28, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a low back disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his back disability is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for back disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1969 to February 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2011 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2015, March 2018, April 2019, and August 2019, the Board has remanded this matter for further development. The Veteran contends that his low back disability is due to an in-service injury when he was pinned against a wall by an engine. For the following reasons, the Board agrees and finds that service connection is warranted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a 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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Veteran has a current back disability of chronic lumbar strain and degenerative joint disease. His service treatment records include a November 1972 notation of the Veteran reporting back pain after being pinned against a wall by an engine. The Board finds this to satisfy the first two elements of service connection. Turning to the third element, medical nexus, the evidence consists of VA examinations and a private examination. Throughout the appeal period, VA has obtained multiple opinions from physicians regarding the nexus of the Veteran’s back disability. All physicians have found that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s back disability is related to service. However, in their rationale, the physicians all state that there is no documentation of an in-service injury. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records finds this to not be true. As stated above, the Veteran’s service treatment records include a notation of the Veteran reporting back pain after being pinned to a wall by an engine. The opinions obtained by VA are based on incorrect facts. The Board finds these opinions to be inadequate and affords them no probative weight. After his most recent remand, the Veteran submitted a private nexus opinion. In an April 2019 letter received in December 2019, the physician opines that it is more likely than not that the Veteran’s back pain was incurred by his in-service injury. As their rationale the physician states that they reviewed the Veteran’s service treatment records and note that the Veteran received a back injury in 1972. The physician is competent to provide this opinion, the Board finds them to be credible, and affords their opinion great probative weight. The Board finds the evidence to be in relative equipoise. If the evidence is supportive or is in relative equipoise, then the veteran prevails. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for back disability is granted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, 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.