Citation Nr: 21069478 Decision Date: 11/18/21 Archive Date: 11/18/21 DOCKET NO. 17-61 141 DATE: November 18, 2021 ORDER Service connection for gout is denied. REMANDED Service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. Service connection for asthma is remanded. A compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of gout and did not manifest a current diagnosis of gout during the pendency of the appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for gout have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 1131, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304; 3.307; 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably in the United States Navy from September 1968 to December 1972. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This appeal is being adjudicated under the legacy appellate framework. The Veteran initially requested a personal hearing before the Board, but, in July 2017, the Veteran withdrew his request for a personal hearing before the Board. 1. Service connection for gout is denied. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for gout. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran is not entitled to service connection. In seeking VA disability compensation, a Veteran generally seeks to establish that a current disability results from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. "Service connection" basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Furthermore, service connection can be established through application of statutory presumptions, including for chronic diseases like arthritis, when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Veteran's treatment records are silent for a diagnosis of or treatment for gout. The record is silent for a competent medical opinion diagnosing the Veteran with gout. A current diagnosis or a diagnosis during the period on appeal is the cornerstone for a claim for service connection, and, without one, the Veteran cannot sustain a claim for service connection for gout. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (1997). Here, the weight of the probative evidence of record simply fails to demonstrate that the Veteran is entitled to service connection for gout. Therefore, the evidence in this case is not so evenly balanced so as to allow application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule as required by law and VA regulations. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, entitlement to service connection for gout is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connection for a right knee disability is remanded. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for a right knee disability. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2015. The examiner opined that the Veteran's right knee disability was not due to a period of service, because it preexisted a period of service. Upon reviewing the Veteran's service treatment records, however, the Veteran's lower extremities were evaluated as normal during the Veteran's induction examination; and the induction examination was otherwise silent for a diagnosis of a right knee disability. The Veteran is entitled to a presumption of soundness except for disabilities that are documented on the Veteran's induction examination. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b). The presumption of soundness may be rebutted when clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that a disability preexisted a period of service and was not aggravated by a period of service. The October 2015 examination does not address these concerns. Once VA undertakes the effort to provide the Veteran with an examination, it must provide the Veteran with an adequate one, and an adequate examination is sufficiently detailed in order to ensure that VA's evaluation of the Veteran's claim is fully formed. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Therefore, this matter must be remanded for another VA examination in order to address this concern. 2. Service connection for asthma is remanded. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for asthma. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2015 for asthma. The examiner opined that the Veteran had a diagnosis of asthma that dated back to a period of service, but the examiner did not opine on whether or not a medical nexus existed between a current diagnosis or an in-service incurrence. Once VA undertakes the effort to provide the Veteran with an examination, it must provide the Veteran with an adequate one, and an adequate examination is sufficiently detailed in order to ensure that VA's evaluation of the Veteran's claim is fully formed. See Barr. Therefore, this matter must be remanded for another VA examination in order to address this concern. 3. A compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. At issue is whether the Veteran is entitled to a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran last underwent a VA examination evaluating the severity of his bilateral hearing loss in September 2015. Given that over half a decade has passed since the Veteran's last VA examination, the Board can no longer guarantee that the evidence of record accurately reflects the current state of the Veteran's hearing loss, and the matter must be remanded for a new VA examination discussing the current severity of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to address the following: (a.) Is it clear and unmistakable (obvious or manifest) that the Veteran's right knee disability preexisted a period of service? Why or why not? (b.) Is it clear an unmistakable (obvious or manifest) that the Veteran's right knee disability was NOT aggravated by a period of service? Why or why not? 2. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to address the following. Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or more) that a medical nexus exist between an in-service incurrence and a current diagnosis of asthma? Why or why not? 3. Arrange to provide the Veteran with a VA examination in order to discuss the current severity of the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board David R. Seaton, 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.