Citation Nr: 21071741 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 16-60 154 DATE: December 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left wrist disability, to include carpal tunnel syndrome, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability, to include carpal tunnel syndrome is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip condition is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right leg condition is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot condition is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity is denied. Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The record lacks competent evidence of a left or right wrist disability. 2. The record lacks competent evidence of a right hip, leg, or foot disability. 3. The competent medical evidence does not show that a lumbar spine disability was incurred in service or is otherwise attributable to the Veteran's active service or any incident of service. 4. The competent medical evidence does not demonstrate that a bilateral lower extremity neurological condition was incurred in service or is otherwise attributable to the Veteran's active service or any incident of service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a left wrist disability, to include carpal tunnel syndrome, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). 2. The criteria for service connection for a right wrist disability, to include carpal tunnel syndrome, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). 3. The criteria for service connection for a right hip condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). 4. The criteria for service connection for a right leg condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). 5. The criteria for service connection for a right foot condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). 6. The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). 7. The criteria for service connection for peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). 8. The criteria for service connection for peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1980 to April 1983. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2018, the Board remanded the appeal for further development. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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). In claims for service connection, failure to report to any scheduled examination, without good cause, may result in denial of the claim (as the original claim will be considered on the basis of the evidence of record). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, the illness or hospitalization of the claimant, death of an immediate family member, etc. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 (a), (b) (2020). Entitlement to service connection for disabilities of the right and left wrist, lumbar spine, right hip, right leg, right foot, and right and left lower extremity peripheral neuropathy is denied. The Veteran asserts that his claimed disabilities are related to an injury on an obstacle course during boot camp in 1983. He further stated that he reported his injuries to his drill sergeant, presented to a clinic for medical assistance, was provided painkillers, and was confined to quarters for one week. See December 2015 VA 21-4138 Statement in Support of Claim. Initially, the Board notes that post-service treatment records do not show complaints of, or treatment for, right and left wrist disabilities, to include carpal tunnel syndrome, and disabilities of the right hip, leg, and foot. A December 2018 private treatment record noted a potential disability of the neck (C5) but did not note any radiating pain into the upper extremities. Although the Veteran complained of radiating pain into the lower extremities and was diagnosed with sciatica, there is no medical evidence of non-neurological disabilities of the right hip, leg, and foot. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any disability present, but he failed to report. He has not provided any explanation as to why he failed to report to the scheduled examination. Thus, the Board must adjudicate the claims on the current record. As the record does not show a disability during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim, the claims for disabilities of the bilateral wrists and right hip, leg, and foot must be denied. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Regarding the remaining claimed disabilities, the record contains notations of treatment for chronic lumbar spine pain with pain radiating into the lower extremities. See December 2015 VA treatment records; see also December 2018 private treatment records. Further, a December 2015 treatment record noted that the Veteran reported chronic back pain since he left service. However, the record lacks evidence of complaints of, or treatment for, any disability during service and until December 2015, many years after service and subsequent to his August 2015 claim for compensation. The Board acknowledges that the absence of documented treatment in service or thereafter is not fatal to a service connection claim, and that the absence of evidence in the Veteran's service treatment records is an insufficient basis, by itself, for a negative opinion. See Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). However, though the evidence suggests the Veteran has a lumbar spine disability and an associated neurological deficit of the lower extremities, the Veteran has not complied with VA efforts to clarify diagnosis or determine etiology. VA is generally required to make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (a). Nonetheless, a claimant is required to cooperate fully with VA's efforts. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(1). Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517 (1996) (noting that VA has duty to assist the Veteran, not a duty to prove her claim while the Veteran remains passive). See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991) (holding that the duty to assist the Veteran is not a "one-way street," and that, if he desires help with his claim, he must cooperate with VA's efforts to assist). Overall, the record fails to show that the Veteran's claimed lumbar spine disability and peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities is related to service. The Board has considered the Veteran's statement regarding chronic lumbar pain since service. However, the evidence does not indicate that he has the medical background necessary to competently render a diagnosis (other than anything lay observable) or to competently opine regarding etiology. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran's claims for service connection must be denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claims, the benefit-of-the-doubt standard of proof does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Roya Bahrami, 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.