Citation Nr: 21062467 Decision Date: 10/07/21 Archive Date: 10/07/21 DOCKET NO. 18-18 902 DATE: October 7, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a foot disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have pes planus or a foot disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW Pes planus was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 2011 to December 2014. The claim currently before the Board stems from a December 2015 rating decision. The Veteran appeared at a Board hearing in April 2021; a transcript is of record. During the Board hearing, the undersigned Veterans Law Judge clarified the issues on appeal, identified potential evidentiary defects, and clarified the type of evidence that would support the Veteran's claim. The actions of the Veterans Law Judge supplement the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) and comply with any related duties owed during a hearing. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103. The Board notes that the Veteran's representative requested an extension in June 2021, which was subsequently granted in July 2021. An additional extension request was subsequently received on August 6, 2021. The Board has adhered to the second request and will now proceed with adjudication of the issue currently before it. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a foot disorder Veterans are entitled to compensation if they develop a disability "resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty." 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (wartime service), 1131 (peacetime service). To establish entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits, 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." See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. See Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1, 8 (1999). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997). "Congress specifically limits entitlement to service-connected disease or injury where such cases have resulted in a disability... in the absence of a proof of present disability there can be no claim." Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Court has held that the requirement for service connection that a current disability be present is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary's adjudication of the claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The Veteran claims that he has a foot disorder, specifically pes planus (flat foot). He states that after a service injury, he was noted as possibly having pes planus. In particular, he notes that a VA examiner noted that the condition of his feet was deteriorating. Service treatment records do not document any relevant treatment or a diagnosis specific to pes planus. However, the Veteran received treatment for his right foot during service. In May 2012, a log fell on his right foot, resulting in swelling, bruising and tenderness. In August 2014, the Veteran received orthopedic footwear for his right foot. Medical records from after service do not indicate that the Veteran was diagnosed with pes planus. Wide feet and foot pain were noted, a Veteran-reported diagnosis of pes planus were also noted in medical records. See e.g. CAPRI- Prosthetics/ Orthotics Consult Result- July 26, 2017, dated December 21, 2017. The Veteran filed a claim in June 2015. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in October 2015, which included an addendum medical report in December 2015, and February 2018. Both VA examinations affirmatively stated that the Veteran did not have pes planus in either foot. A review of the medical evidence does not reveal pes planus or a foot disorder. As a result, the Veteran does not have a foot disorder and has not had such a diagnosis or disability at any time during the claims period. McClain, supra. In the absence of a disability, compensation may not be awarded. In the absence of evidence of a current disability, there can be no grant of service connection under the law. See Brammer, supra. The Board has considered the lay statements of the Veteran regarding his foot disorder. The Veteran is competent to provide evidence of what he experiences, including his symptomatology and medical history. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Veteran is competent to report what he experienced. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, he is competent to report that which he has been told by an examiner. However, we must compare such lay medical evidence with the other evidence of record. Here, the determination by a VA examiner is far more probative and more credible than the Veteran's recollection of what he had been told. The record establishes that he does not have foot pathology. Here, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. The Veteran does not have pes planus or any pathology and has not had such a diagnosis or disability at any time during the claims period. McClain, supra. In the absence of a disability, compensation may not be awarded. In the absence of evidence of a current disability, there can be no grant of service connection under the law. See Brammer, supra. The claim must be denied. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jonah Nelson, 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.