Citation Nr: 21064377 Decision Date: 10/20/21 Archive Date: 10/20/21 DOCKET NO. 18-49 398 DATE: October 20, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an eating disorder, claimed as secondary to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied. FINDING OF FACT At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a currently diagnosed eating disorder and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of the disability prior to the Veteran's filing of a claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an eating disorder, claimed as secondary to PTSD, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the Army from January 1998 to September 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an eating disorder, claimed as secondary to PTSD, is denied. The Veteran generally contends that her eating disorder is secondary to her service-connected PTSD. Specific argument in support of this appeal has not been submitted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Specifically, service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). VA has amended 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 to explicitly incorporate the holding in Allen, except that it will not concede aggravation unless a baseline for the claimed disability can be established with evidence created prior to any aggravation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that §§ 1110 and 1131's requirement of the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 323 (2007) (holding that the requirement of a current disability is met when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim). Consequently, the evidence of record must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed. The service treatment records are absent of any complaints, diagnoses or treatments for an eating disorder. The post-service treatment records are also absent of any complaints, diagnoses or treatments for an eating disorder. A July 2017 VA examination report reflects the Veteran's reports that from 2004 to 2005, she binged and purged her food twice a month. She reported that she discontinued when she was not losing weight and because the purging was painful. She denied any eating concerns related to food since 2005. The examiner opined that the Veteran denied any symptoms related to eating disorders, that she has not had any concerns related to binging and purging since 2005 and that she thus does not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of an eating disorder under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Ed.) (DSM-5). In consideration of evidence of record, the Board finds no current diagnosis of an eating disorder is present. The Board notes a current disability is always required in order to establish service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). With regard to the claimed eating disorder there is not sufficient evidence to show that the Veteran has had an eating disorder during the appeal period. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). The Board acknowledges the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court's) holding in Saunders but does not find a basis for determining that there is functional impairment related to a diagnosis of an eating disorder. See Saunders v. Wilkie, supra. The Veteran has not alleged manifestations of similar severity, frequency and duration as those VA has determined by regulation would cause impaired earning capacity in an average person. Wait v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 8 (2020). In addition, the record does not reflect a diagnosis related to an eating disorder under the DSM-5. See Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393 (2020). In summary, the controlling question in this case is answered in the negative. In the absence of proof of a present disability (and, if so, of a nexus between that disability and service), there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (stating that service connection presupposes a current diagnosis of the condition claimed, to at least confirm the veteran has it; without this minimum level of proof, there can be no valid claim). Therefore, as the evidence of record shows that the Veteran does not have an eating disorder, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted, and no further discussion of the remaining elements is necessary. See Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309, 314 (1993) ("A determination of service connection requires a finding of the existence of a current disability and a determination of a relationship between that disability and an injury or a disease incurred in service."); see also Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 427, 431 (2006) (finding that the absence of any one element will result in denial of service connection). Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for an eating disorder and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, supra. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Adeyemi, 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.