Citation Nr: 21071257 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 17-51 411 DATE: November 30, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a fallopian tube disability, to include infertility, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record does not reflect any diagnosed, undiagnosed, or other qualifying bilateral knee disability during the period on appeal. 2. The evidence of record does not reflect any diagnosed, undiagnosed, or other qualifying fallopian tube disability, to include infertility, during the period on appeal. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a fallopian tube disability, to include infertility, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1979 to September 1986 with additional service in the National Guard and in the Reserves. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board previously granted the reopening of the Veteran' claims in a July 2019 Board decision which then denied the claims. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision denying entitlement to service connection for bilateral knee disability. In February 2021, the Court, in a Memorandum Decision, overturned the Board's decision, and it remanded the claim to the Board. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection generally requires evidence satisfying three criteria: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship ("nexus") between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability 2. Entitlement to service connection for a fallopian tube disability, to include infertility The Veteran alleges that she had knee complaints and female organ complaints during service and that she is entitled to service connection. The Board acknowledges that service treatment records contain complaints regarding her knees and her female organs. However, the evidence of record does not reflect a diagnosis or symptoms of a current disability during the period on appeal. At the outset, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran has not been provided a VA examination for her claimed bilateral knee and fallopian tube disabilities. The Veteran's representative also alleges that the Veteran was not "asked to provide civilian documentation" in support of her current bilateral knee or fallopian tube conditions. See July 2020 Informal Hearing Presentation. First, the Board emphasizes that the Veteran submitted a fully developed claim, Form 21-526EZ, in December 2016, which instructed the Veteran to submit all relevant, private medical treatment records simultaneously with the claim. The Veteran did not submit any private medical treatment records at any time during the pendency of this appeal. The Veteran was given Veteran's Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) notice and did not express any desire for VA to obtain any private medical records until the July 2020 Informal Hearing Presentation indicated that the Veteran was not provided with VCAA notice. See Scott v McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to duty to assist argument). Nonetheless, the Veteran still has not identified any specific private or VA medical records that would assist her in substantiating her claim. The Board notes that the duty to assist a claimant is not a one-way street, and in the instant case, the Veteran has failed to cooperate to the full extent in the development of her claim by failing to identify private records that would assist in substantiating her claim. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Here, the Board notes that the Veteran has not provided any lay or medical evidence during the period on appeal in support of a diagnosis or symptoms related to her claimed bilateral knee and fallopian tube disabilities. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination for her claims. Under McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), in initial service connection claims, the VA must provide a VA medical examination where there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service; and (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim. The Veteran has not provided any competent or credible evidence of a current disability or persistent or current symptoms of a disability. The record is devoid of any descriptions of the symptoms experienced by the Veteran related to her bilateral knee and fallopian tube claims. While service records indicate in-service knee and fallopian tube complaints, evidence of a current disability must be affiliated with the claims file in order to warrant conducting a VA examination. In this regard, the Board finds that the Veteran has submitted insufficient, lay or medical, evidence to indicate that she has a current bilateral knee or fallopian tube disability. Accordingly, the Board finds that no further development of the Veteran's claim for service connection for these claims is required. As previously mentioned, the first prong of a service connection claim is a current disability. No credible lay or medical evidence demonstrates that the Veteran had a bilateral knee disability or fallopian tube disability, during the pendency of the appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that "Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim." Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Therefore, the Board must deny the claim. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Palombi 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.