Citation Nr: 21062659 Decision Date: 10/08/21 Archive Date: 10/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-55 243 DATE: October 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left leg tendonitis, including as due to service-connected hypertension, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The record evidence shows that the Veteran does not experience any current disability due to his claimed left leg tendonitis which is related to active service or any incident of service, including as due to service-connected hypertension. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left leg tendonitis, including as due to service-connected hypertension, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1, 3.7, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from February 1983 to February 1986, July 1996 to March 1997, and from March 2003 to May 2004, including in Kuwait in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. He also had additional unverified U.S. Army National Guard (ANG) service. This appeal has a long procedural history. It comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, which denied the currently appealed claim. A virtual Board hearing was held in July 2021 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge and a copy of the hearing transcript has been added to the record. Having reviewed the record evidence, to include the Veteran's hearing testimony, the Board finds that the issue on appeal should be recharacterized as stated above. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting the Veteran's claim of service connection for left leg tendonitis, including as due to service-connected hypertension. The Veteran essentially contends that he incurred left leg tendonitis as a result of an in-service injury while participating in a training exercise as a military policeman (MP). He alternatively contends that his service-connected hypertension caused or aggravated (permanently worsened) his claimed left leg tendonitis. The record evidence does not support the Veteran's assertions regarding the existence of current disability due to his claimed left leg tendonitis which could be attributed to active service or any incident of service, including as due to service-connected hypertension. It shows instead that he does not experience any current disability due to his claimed left leg tendonitis which is attributable to active service or any incident of service, including as due to service-connected hypertension. The Board notes initially that the Veteran's available service treatment records show no complaints of or treatment for left leg tendonitis at any time during service. His left leg was normal clinically on repeated periodic physical examinations conducted during active service. He also repeatedly denied any relevant in-service medical history. The Board notes that the absence of contemporaneous records does not preclude granting service connection for a claimed disability. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding lack of contemporaneous medical records does not serve as an "absolute bar" to the service connection claim); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) ("Board may not reject as not credible any uncorroborated statements merely because the contemporaneous medical evidence is silent as to complaints or treatment for the relevant condition or symptoms"). The Board next notes that the Veteran's DD Form 214s for his multiple periods of service show that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was MP. The Board finds that his report of injuring his left leg while participating in a training exercise as an MP during service is credible because it is consistent with the facts and circumstances of his service. Nevertheless, the post-service evidence also does not support granting service connection for left leg tendonitis, including as due to service-connected hypertension. It shows instead that the Veteran does not experience any current disability due to this claimed disability which is attributable to active service or any incident of service, including as due to service-connected hypertension. For example, his post-service outpatient treatment records show that his left leg repeatedly was normal on physical examination. And no relevant complaints were reported by the Veteran to any of his post-service treating physicians. He testified at his July 2021 virtual Board hearing that he injured his left leg during a training exercise in 2002 he participated in as a military policeman (MP). He also testified that his left leg problem worsened as a result of problems he experienced with his high blood pressure (or hypertension). See Board hearing transcript dated July 26, 2021, at pp. 3. He testified further that he went to sick call on several occasions for left leg problems in 2002 and 2003. Id., at pp. 5 6. A service connection claim must be accompanied by evidence which establishes that the claimant currently has a disability. Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 144 (1992); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Service connection is not warranted in the absence of proof of current disability. The Board has considered whether the Veteran experienced left leg tendonitis at any time during the pendency of this appeal. Service connection may be granted if there is a disability at some point during the claim even if it later resolves or becomes asymptomatic. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). In this case, there is no evidence other than the Veteran's unsupported lay assertions that he experienced left leg tendonitis during or after active service which could be attributed to service or any incident of service, including as due to his service-connected hypertension. He finally has not identified or submitted any evidence demonstrating his entitlement to service connection for left leg tendonitis, including as due to service-connected hypertension. In summary, the Board finds that service connection for left leg tendonitis, including as due to service-connected hypertension, is not warranted. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael T. Osborne, 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.