Citation Nr: 21066683 Decision Date: 11/01/21 Archive Date: 11/01/21 DOCKET NO. 18-37 515 DATE: November 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bronchitis is denied. Entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis is denied. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been withdrawn. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that bronchitis began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that sarcoidosis began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 3. In February 2021, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of the appeal of service connection for PTSD is requested. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for bronchitis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for sarcoidosis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for withdrawal of service connection for PTSD by the Veteran are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from December 1965 to October 1969. He testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a February 2021 hearing. This matter is on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision. Withdrawal The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his authorized representative. Id. In the present case, the Veteran has withdrawn the issue of service connection for PTSD, and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration of that issue. The withdrawal was at the February 2021 hearing, and the transcript shows that it was (1) explicit, (2) unambiguous, and (3) done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011); see Acree v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal of the issue of service connection for PTSD, and it is dismissed. Service Connection 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). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bronchitis The Veteran contends that he has bronchitis related to exposure to cleaning chemicals during service, and that is related to an episode of bronchitis during service. February 2021 Hearing Transcript at 3-4. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has had diagnoses of bronchitis during this appeal, and evidence shows that he had acute bronchitis during service, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of bronchitis began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Following the episode of acute bronchitis in September 1967, private treatment records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with bronchitis again until February 2016, decades after his separation from service. The Veteran has not reported experiencing respiratory symptoms since service. Rather, he testified of only having five to seven episodes of bronchitis since he was separated from service in 1969. February 2021 Hearing Transcript at 5. Even if he had reported having respiratory symptoms since service, he does not have the training or credentials to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that any symptoms were manifestations of bronchitis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran was provided a VA examination in August 2016. No diagnosis of bronchitis was provided. No medical professional has provided any opinion relating episodes of bronchitis during this appeal to the Veteran's military service. Absent such evidence, there is no reasonable likelihood that an additional VA examination would result in findings favorable to the Veteran. A new VA examination is therefore not "necessary." 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The Veteran believes his bronchitis is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4; see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the evidence failing to show a relationship to service. 2. Entitlement to service connection for sarcoidosis The Veteran contends that he has sarcoidosis related to exposure to cleaning chemicals during service, and that is related to an episode of bronchitis during service. February 2021 Hearing Transcript at 3-4. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sarcoidosis during this appeal, and evidence shows that he had acute bronchitis during service, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of sarcoidosis began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran's hearing testimony and August 2016 VA examination show that he was not diagnosed with sarcoidosis until 2004, decades after his separation from service. The Veteran has not reported experiencing respiratory symptoms since service. Even if the Veteran had reported experiencing respiratory symptoms since service, he does not have the training or credentials to provide a diagnosis in this case or to determine that any symptoms were manifestations of sarcoidosis. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4. Further, the August 2016 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's sarcoidosis is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including in-service bronchitis. The rationale was that the single episode of bronchitis during service resolved, and 35 plus years had passed without respiratory complaints. The examiner's opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). In finding the examiner's opinion probative, the Board acknowledges that the examiner did not opine as to whether sarcoidosis is related to exposure to cleaning chemicals. However, no medical professional has provided any opinion relating sarcoidosis to such exposures. Absent such evidence, there is no reasonable likelihood that an additional VA opinion would result in findings favorable to the Veteran. A new VA examination is therefore not "necessary." 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The Veteran believes his sarcoidosis is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4; see also Kahana, 24. Vet. App. 428. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the evidence failing to show a relationship to service. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Barstow, 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.