Citation Nr: 21071802 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 20-18 124 DATE: December 1, 2021 ORDER Service connection for Raynaud's syndrome is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran's Raynaud's syndrome developed as a result of in-service cold exposure. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for Raynaud's syndrome have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1966 to March 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in October 2017 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. In January 2021, the Veteran and his wife testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also 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). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The Veteran asserts that he developed Raynaud's syndrome as a direct result of being stationed for 18 months in Alaska, while in service. Specifically, he contends that his Alaska service exposed him to extremely cold temperatures, which caused him to develop the condition. He described his in-service duties of working to clean up the aftermath of a flood in the town of Fairbanks, and how he was exposed for months to the cold and damp weather related to this cleanup. He has also asserted that sleeping outdoors, in Alaska, exposed him to subzero temperatures which caused him to later develop Raynaud's. The Veteran's service treatment records are silent as to any symptoms of or treatment for cold related injuries. At his January 1969 separation examination, his extremities and neurological systems were evaluated as normal. At that time, the Veteran specifically denied experiencing any paralysis or any illness or injury other than those listed. In a September 2015 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) submitted by the Veteran, his treating physician Dr. H.W. confirmed a diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome with a 2008 onset and determined that it was due to exposure to extreme cold weather for a long period of time. In a July 2017 addendum, Dr. H.W. described the Veteran's symptoms and explained that it was more likely than not that the Veteran's Raynaud's syndrome was caused by his service in Alaska. He supported this conclusion with a rationale that indicated that exposure to cold temperatures for 18 months would cause the condition to develop. In January 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in relation to his claim. At that time, a VA examining physician concluded it was less likely than not that the Veteran's Raynaud's syndrome was due to his in-service cold exposure. As rationale, the examiner acknowledged the Veteran's reports of in-service cold exposure, but then determined that because there was no report of signs and symptoms of frostbite or Raynaud's disease in the Veteran's service treatment records, and no record of ongoing symptoms since service, then the condition was not due to in-service cold exposure while serving in Alaska. Based on this evidence, the Board finds that service connection is warranted, as the most probative evidence indicates that the Veteran's Raynaud's syndrome is due to his military service. Initially, the Board assigns no probative weight to the conclusion of the January 2020 examiner, as the examiner based his conclusion on the absence of evidence of a disability in the Veteran's service treatment records, and disregarded his competent reports of an in-service injury. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 39-40 (2007). By contrast, the Board finds that the 2015 DBQ and July 2017 addendum, collectively, contained a clear conclusion and supporting data, as well as a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two, which linked the Veteran's in-service extended cold exposure to his subsequent diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A]medical opinion... must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). The Board has no reason to doubt the Veteran's description of his in-service cold exposure, and finds that the evidence shows a likely link to his current disability. A veteran is competent to report on events which occurred in service, because testimony regarding first-hand knowledge of a factual matter is competent. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 363 (2005). Thus, the Board concedes the Veteran's in-service cold exposure. When combined with the private opinions of record, and when resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that service connection for Raynaud's syndrome is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra. The claim is granted. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jeremy J. Olsen, 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.