Citation Nr: 21068589 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 15-10 958 DATE: November 10, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for fainting problems is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have, nor at any pertinent point during the current appeal period has had, a disability manifested by fainting problems. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for fainting spells 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 1970 to August 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision issued by Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), which in this case is a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The appeal was remanded for additional development in June 2021. The Veteran was notified in January 2021 that his requested Board virtual hearing was scheduled for February 2021; he did not respond, and the hearing was postponed. The Veteran and his representative were notified of the rescheduled hearing in March 2021, but neither appeared for the scheduled May 2021 hearing. Neither the Veteran nor his representative have requested to reschedule or provided any reason for the Veteran's failure to appear. Thus, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). Entitlement to service connection for fainting problems The Veteran alleges that he has fainting spells that started during active service. Specifically, he alleges that his fainting spells started during bootcamp training at Marine Corps Recruit Depot ("MCRD"), San Diego, CA in 1970, and he was taken to the Base Dispensary. He also alleges that he was stationed in Virginia and received treatment for fainting spells at Bethesda Military Hospital in 1973-1974. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability manifested by fainting or syncopal episodes that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury or disease. After thorough review of the record, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of fainting spells or syncopal episodes, and has not had one during the appeal period. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). As noted in the June 2021 Board remand, the Veteran's service treatment records appear incomplete, with only his entrance and separation examinations of record. In instances of incomplete service treatment records, VA must employ heightened consideration of the benefit-of-the-doubt standard and rely on the competent and credible reports of medical history and symptoms. See Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542, 548 (1992); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). The Veteran's July 1974 separation examination does not indicate whether the Veteran had any fainting or syncopal disabilities or symptoms of disabilities, as the Veteran had normal clinical evaluations, aside from identifying scars of the right shoulder, left elbow, and upper left arm. The Veteran denied dizziness or fainting spells in his July 1974 medical history report. Post-service treatment records are silent for complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for a disability manifested by fainting spells, syncope, dizziness, or vertigo. In VA treatment records dated May 2013, June 2015, April 2018, and September 2020, it is noted that the Veteran denied dizziness. Pursuant to the June 2021 Board remand, the Veteran underwent a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any disorder manifested by fainting or dizziness. Specifically, the Veteran underwent a heart conditions VA examination in June 2021. He reported he began experiencing episodes of fainting during basic training in 1970-1971 and he sought medical attention. He stated his condition had stayed about the same. He took Bayer aspirin, once a day for his heart. He reported he experienced several episodes of fainting and dizziness since separation and his last episode occurred about seven to eight months prior. After examining the Veteran and reviewing the records, the VA examiner determined that the Veteran did not have a heart condition and had no symptoms due to a heart condition. The examiner also opined that the claimed condition of fainting problems was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner provided the following rationale: There is no evidence found of a disorder causing veteran's symptoms of fainting and dizziness. Symptoms are subjective only and there is no evidence of chronicity of care for a disorder causing symptoms of fainting and dizziness. Situations such as temperature exposure, dehydration and orthostatic hypertension can cause symptoms of fainting and dizziness, however without supporting evidence to confirm veteran's symptoms, that would be pure speculation. While veteran states he was taken by ambulance to the hospital for symptoms of fainting and dizziness while in service, condition was acute only as veteran has not been seen for symptoms of fainting or dizziness since separation from service in 1974. Records from 2013, 2015, and 2020 note veteran denies symptoms of dizziness. There is no evidence to determine an etiology for veteran's symptoms of fainting and dizziness or that the symptoms are in any relation to his military service. A nexus has not been established. Furthermore, there is no indication that the Veteran served in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.2 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.17(a)(1)(ii). Thus, he is not a "Persian Gulf veteran" for the purposes of being eligible for consideration of compensation for certain disabilities due to undiagnosed illnesses. 38 U.S.C. § 1117, 38 C.F.R. § 3.317. (Continued on the next page) It is the Veteran's general evidentiary burden to establish all elements of the claim, including evidence of a current disability. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a); Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d. 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation; consequently, failure to establish a current disability results in the denial of a claim. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (1997). Specifically, a claimant must have a disability in order to be considered for service connection. In Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992), the Court noted that Congress specifically limited entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents had resulted in a disability. See also Gilpin v. Brown, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (service connection may not be granted unless a current disability exists). Having reviewed the medical and lay evidence of record, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates the Veteran does not have a current disability manifested by fainting spells, dizziness, or vertigo. In the absence of competent medical evidence of a disability manifested by fainting spells, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. J. M. Kirby Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.N., 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.