Citation Nr: 21064983 Decision Date: 10/22/21 Archive Date: 10/22/21 DOCKET NO. 16-33 097 DATE: October 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service from September 2006 to February 2011. He is the recipient of several medals, including an Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, Army Achievement Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, and a Combat Infantryman Badge. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a June 2021 virtual Board hearing. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the file. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that his back condition is a direct result of service. Specifically, he asserts that his back condition is due to carrying 80-120lbs of gear regularly while serving in the Infantry division. During his June 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran provided testimony regarding several in-service incidents that he believes have also contributed to his current back condition, including sustaining an 8-foot fall and being thrown against the side of a vehicle after an IED blast. See Hearing Transcript, Page 3. The Veteran contends that his service treatment records are silent for treatment for his back, because seeking treatment was looked down upon in his unit. The Veteran was provided a VA Back examination in October 2015. The examiner opined that the Veteran's back condition was less likely than not related to service. For rationale, the examiner noted there were no service treatment records mentioning a complaint or treatment of back pain and the Veteran's post deployment health assessment completed in June 2010 documented no back pain after deployment. With no documentation of complaints of, evaluation for, or diagnosis of a back condition while in service, it is less likely than not that his back condition developed while in service. The Board cannot rely upon such a conclusion, which relies so heavily upon the absence of treatment in service treatment records and does not discuss the Veteran's lay statements. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). An updated examination and opinion are needed. Additionally, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination and opinion addressing his June 2021 Board hearing contentions of a relationship between his back condition and several in-service incidents. Development for this opinion is necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his back disability. The examiner is asked to review the claims file and provide the following information: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's back disability was incurred in or otherwise related to the Veteran's service. In formulating the opinion, the examiner should address and comment on the Veteran's June 2021 Board hearing testimony contentions of back pain during active service following several incidents including an 8-foot fall, being thrown against a hatch after an IED blast, and back pain from carrying 80-120lbs of gear while completing extensive runs/marches. The examiner should address whether the Veteran's contention that his current back disability is related to those injuries and is consistent with his description of those injuries and his description of the course of his continual back pain. The examiner should set forth all examination findings, with a clear rationale for the conclusions reached. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Krista Johnson, 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.