Citation Nr: 21068349 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-06 296 DATE: November 10, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back injury/herniated disc is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a back injury/herniated disc, began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service event, injury, or disease CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a back injury/herniated disc have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with from February 1996 to July 1998. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (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 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Entitlement to service connection for a back injury/herniated disc The Veteran contends that his back injury is the result of his active service. In October 2013, the Veteran was provided with a Formal finding on the Unavailability of Service treatment records (STRs). Nevertheless, his July 1998 discharge examination is of record and silent for any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment of a back injury. In September 1999, a Radiologist report indicated an impression of back pain for the past four months as the result of a lumbar spine MRI for the Veteran. An associated memorandum indicates the injury was work-related. An MRI in April 2000 revealed right sided herniation at L4-5 with a diagnosis of herniated nucleus pulposus with the examiner indicating a one-year history of injury. The Veteran's spouse indicated in a statement that the Veteran complained of a back injury as soon as he separated from service. Several buddy statements noted that the Veteran's back injury was most likely a result of the heavy lifting he did during military service. The remaining evidence of record indicates continued complaints of a back injury but no discussion on its etiology. Based on the foregoing evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. Indeed, the Board brings attention to the evidence indicating the Veteran's back injury was related to his employment post service. Further, the Veteran has not provided any medical documentation indicating his condition is the result of his active service. While the Veteran believes his back injury is related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, and has provided buddy statements attesting to this contention, he, nor his friends, are competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of anatomical relationships and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran, and his friends, in this case because the record does not show that they have the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). There is no showing of an in-service injury or disease to which the current back diagnosis may relate, and no basis shown for an award of benefits for chronic disability seen in the first post service year or based on continuity of symptoms. These facts render no need for any further examination or opinion and provide no basis for an award of service connection for a back disability. Continued on next page. In conclusion, the weight of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a back injury. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. A. Elliott II, 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.