Citation Nr: 21074209 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 14-33 615 DATE: December 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for Raynaud's syndrome (claimed as cold weather injuries) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran had Raynaud's syndrome (claimed as cold weather injuries) at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for Raynaud's syndrome (claimed as cold weather injuries) are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from January 1951 to December 1952. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from the September 2011rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Sadly, the Veteran passed away in September 2021. The Veteran's surviving spouse has been substituted in as the Appellant. Entitlement to service connection for Raynaud's syndrome (claimed as cold weather injuries) The Appellant contends that the Veteran suffered from residuals of cold weather injuries due to his time spent overseas in Germany. Prior to his death, the Veteran asserted that he was exposed to the harsh winter weather while repairing vehicles in a field environment while in service. The Veteran stated throughout the record that he suffered from chronic pain and swelling of his lower extremities and pain in his shoulders. 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). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran had a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome or cold weather residuals and did not have one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The February 2018 VA examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined that, while he experienced subjective symptoms of cold sensitivity, he did not have a diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome or any diagnosed cold weather residuals. Additionally, the examiner stated that the X-ray taken at that time revealed left foot osteoarthritis. However, the examiner stated that this condition is less likely than not due to cold weather exposure and more likely than not related to some other pathology such as atherosclerosis or vascular disease. Further, VA treatment records do not contain a diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome or any other cold weather injury residual. The Board also notes that the Veteran's previous VA examinations in August 2016 stated that the Veteran did not have any diagnosed cold weather residuals. While the Veteran believed that he had a current diagnosis of Raynaud's syndrome, he was not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for Raynaud's syndrome, or residuals of cold weather injuries, is not warranted. In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mountford, 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.