Citation Nr: 21064091 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 18-09 991 DATE: October 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for chronic bronchitis is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for cervicalgia (also claimed as neck pain and occipital neuralgia) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability (also claimed as paresthesias, plantar fasciitis, and altered gait) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bunions, bilateral feet is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence does not establish that the Veteran currently has bronchitis that is etiologically related to an event, injury, or disease in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bronchitis have not been 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 on active duty from August 27, 1990, to April 10, 1991, with subsequent service in the Navy Reserve. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 Rating Decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in June 2020. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. Entitlement to service connection for chronic bronchitis The Veteran contends she has bronchitis related to active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, in determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of matter, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Although service treatment records (STRs) document symptoms of coughing and an upper respiratory infection (URI), there is no diagnosis of bronchitis. Further, post service medical records do not show bronchitis or any other respiratory condition. Although the records show that the Veteran uses antihistamines, the records make clear that it is due to her allergic rhinitis. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in April 2017 for respiratory conditions. The Veteran reported a history of acute bronchitis that occurred during deployments to South America while exposed to dust in the region. The examiner noted that she did not appear to have any residual symptoms nor is she currently being treated for a respiratory illness, acute or chronic. A chest x-ray also revealed there were no acute cardiopulmonary diseases. The examiner acknowledged that STRs noted that the Veteran had an URI in November 1990, however, a review of the files indicates the condition did not persist and was not chronic. The November 1990 URI was most likely an acute event. Currently, the Veteran's history and physical examination does not present medical evidence indicative of a diagnosis of bronchitis or a respiratory condition. Thus, the Board finds there simply is no probative evidence of the presence of bronchitis. The Board has considered the Veteran's own assertions that she has bronchitis, however, there is no indication of any respiratory condition in her treatment records. Thus, the Board gives more probative value to the April 2017 VA examination, which is corroborated by her medical treatment records. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran's own assertions of disability to lack probative value. In sum, the record does not contain probative evidence of bronchitis. The threshold element of a service connection claim (a current disability) has not been met; therefore, service connection for a bronchitis disability must be denied. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for cervicalgia, bilateral foot pain and bunions is remanded. The Veteran testified at her June 2020 Board hearing that her conditions of cervicalgia, bilateral foot pain and bilateral bunions developed during her periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA). Specifically, she alleges that her cervicalgia began in May 1994, her bunions in September 2008 and her bilateral foot pain in June 1992. The record shows that the RO obtained several military personnel records, including a Statement of Service for Navy Reserve Retirement, which includes retirement points. While additional periods of ACDUTRA is documented, it is unclear exactly when the Veteran was on active duty, ACDUTRA, and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). The Board notes that the Veteran's complaints were documented at different points during her reserve service. Thus, the specific dates during which the Veteran performed active service, ACDUTRA, and/or INACDUTRA are relevant to her claim. Accordingly, the Board finds that the AOJ should make an attempt to verify the Veteran's periods of active duty, ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. The RO's findings concerning the Veteran's dates and types of service should be set out in a Memorandum that is added to the claims file. If the Veteran's specific dates of ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA are unable to be verified through official sources, then that should also be explained in a Memorandum that is added to the claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Verify through official sources any period(s) of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and/or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) the Veteran served. The specific dates that the Veteran served for each type of verified service should be set out. The RO's findings regarding the Veteran's periods of service should be set out in a Memorandum that is added to the claims file. If the Veteran's specific dates of ACDUTRA and/or INACDUTRA are unable to be verified through official sources, then that should also be explained in a Memorandum that is added to the claims file. 2. Thereafter, readjudicate the claims on appeal. MICHAEL KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Jaigirdar, 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.