Citation Nr: 21070301 Decision Date: 11/23/21 Archive Date: 11/23/21 DOCKET NO. 14-00 226 DATE: November 23, 2021 ORDER Service connection for the residuals of a right foot injury is granted. VETERAN'S CONTENTION The Veteran contends that he has residuals of a right foot injury related to a September 2004 incident in which a Humvee ran over his right foot. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of right foot gout. 2. The Veteran's gout is a residual of the September 2004 right foot injury. 3. The Veteran's gout was aggravated during his subsequent periods of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA.). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for the residuals of a right foot injury are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1153, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army Reserve, National Guard Unit, including active duty for training from October 1974 to January 1975, and additional United States Army Reserve, National Guard service. This matter comes to the Board of the Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Montgomery, Alabama. Jurisdiction is currently with the RO in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Board previously remanded this matter for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a right foot injury Generally, service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. This means that the facts 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 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Active military, naval, or air service includes any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty, or any period of inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(21), (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a), (d). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical evidence. VA must also consider all favorable lay evidence of record. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has actually observed and is within the realm of his or her personal knowledge). Here, in addressing the criteria of a current diagnosis, a July 2021 VA Foot Conditions Examination report documents a current diagnosis of right foot gout. In addressing in-service incurrence, as indicated above, the Veteran contends that he has residuals of a right foot injury related to a September 2004 incident in which a Humvee ran over his right foot. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are void of complaints of or treatment for a right foot injury. In addressing nexus, the RO denied the Veteran's claim in an August 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) stating that although the evidence of record showed that the Veteran injured his right foot on September 22, 2004, the evidence failed to show that the injury was related to his active duty, ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA service while assigned to the Alabama National Guard. Specifically, a payment worksheet received from DFAS did not show that the Veteran received federal pay for September 22, 2004; such evidence was sufficient to determine that the Veteran was not on orders to report for ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA service on that date. However, service connection may also be granted for an injury aggravated during a period of INACDUTRA. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24)(B), 101(24)(C), 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6 (a), 3.303. In this regard, a July 2021 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran initially injured his right foot on September 22, 2004 when it was run over by a Humvee while he was doing hurricane relief after Katrina and he continued to have problems ever since. The examiner indicated that the Veteran was diagnosed with gout on January 27, 2010 and explained that gout can be incited by a prior traumatic injury, such as that the Veteran sustained to his right foot. The examiner further indicated that the ongoing rigors of service can be expected to have contributed to the Veteran's subsequent development of gout. The Board finds the July 2021 VA examiner opinion to be highly probative. The opinion was based on a review of the claims file and relevant facts, and the examiner provided a detailed rationale. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). The Board liberally interprets the July 2021 VA examiner opinion to mean that the Veteran's right foot injury was aggravated by his subsequent periods of INACDUTRA. The Veteran's military personnel records document periods of INACDUTRA subsequent to September 22, 2004. See Army National Guard Retirement Points Statement Soldier Detail Report. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence supports the claim, and the benefit sought on appeal is granted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Smith-Jennings, 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.