Citation Nr: 21070885 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 18-02 697 DATE: November 26, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a low back disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's low back disability is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for a low back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from September 2010 to October 2011, among other periods of service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2015 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). A Board hearing was held in August 2021. A transcript is of record. Entitlement to VA compensation may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (wartime service), 1131 (peacetime service); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 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"-the so-called "nexus" requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). However, "[a] determination of service connection requires a finding of the existence of a current disability and a determination of a relationship between that disability and an injury or disease incurred in service." Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309, 314 (1993). The Veteran asserts that his low back disability is related to service. During his August 2021 hearing, he testified that in addition to general wear and tear during deployment to Afghanistan, he had an injury during physical training and had significant symptoms after filling and lifting sandbags. He als described various instances when he was aboard helicopters that had hard landings. He related that he experienced continuous symptoms following his most recent deployment. His wife testified that, following deployment, the Veteran's range of motion was limited to the extent that he could not put on his socks and shoes in the morning, and that his pain made him irritable. Service treatment records reflect that on pre-deployment health assessment in September 2010, no problems with the Veteran's spine were noted. Sick slips dated in October 2010 and February 2011 indicate that the Veteran was seen for complaints of back pain. The Veteran reported back pain on medical assessment in September 2011. He endorsed back pain on post deployment health assessment in September 2011. Private treatment records reflect that the Veteran was evaluated for low back pain in August 2014. Myofascial pain syndrome was assessed in September 2014. A November 2014 report indicates that imaging revealed retrolisthesis of L5 on S1 and arthritis of the L5-S1 facet joint. The assessment was myofascial pain syndrome, lumbar facet arthropathy, and lumbar radiculopathy. A May 2017 statement by a service colleague indicates that he was a chiropractor in his civilian life. He noted that the Veteran sought him out in March or April 2011 when they were both at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan to discuss his back problems. He recalled the Veteran's statement that he felt beat up, and his asking for advice on how to treat his symptoms. He noted that the Veteran became a patient in his chiropractic practice in 2014, and that the Veteran's physical presentation was consistent with his reports of incidents and injuries. He opined that the Veteran's current conditions were consistent with chronic untreated musculoskeletal injury and that such injuries occurred during service. The Veteran submitted a statement by D.P.A., a service colleague, in June 2017. He indicated that the Veteran was assigned to him during deployment from August 2010 to September 2011. He indicated that during that time, the Veteran complained of back pain and was seen at sick call. He described a 20 day mission during which they were required to carry heavy gear and equipment, and noted that following that mission, the Veteran constantly complained about back pain. He indicated that he gave the Veteran easier duties in light of his complaints. A June 2017 statement by the Veteran's wife indicated that during his second deployment to Afghanistan, in emails and during Skype calls, the Veteran complained of low back pain that radiated into his buttocks and legs. She noted that following his return, he had consistent pain that interfered with activity. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Board has determined that service connection for the Veteran's low back disability is warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board observes that the Veteran was seen for complaints related to his low back during his last period of service. A service colleague who is also a chiropractor reported that he was aware of the Veteran's symptoms and complaints in 2011. He treated the Veteran following service, and opined that the Veteran's low back disability was related to service. Moreover, the Veteran and his wife have competently and consistently reported that he experienced symptoms related to his low back during his last period of service and continuously since that time. Considering the record as a whole, the Board concludes that the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's current low back disability is related to service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Barone, 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.