Citation Nr: 21074653 Decision Date: 12/15/21 Archive Date: 12/15/21 DOCKET NO. 15-43 228 DATE: December 15, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by short-term memory loss is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has had a disability manifested by short-term memory loss at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by short-term memory loss have not been 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 served on active duty in the United States Navy from February 1983 to November 2011. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision issued by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The matter was previously before the Board in September 2018 and again in February 2021. The appeal was remanded to obtain a new VA examination to determine if the Veteran has a current diagnosis. An examination was obtained and associated with the claims file in June 2021. Thus, the Board determines that there has been substantial compliance with the February 2021 remand directives, and further remand is not required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by short-term memory loss. The Veteran contends that he has suffered persistent or recurrent memory loss since active service. 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 has 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 does not have a current diagnosis for a disability manifested by short-term memory loss and has not had 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). In April 2013, the Veteran underwent an examination for an acquired psychiatric disorder and reported memory problems, such as a greater difficulty in finding his words, forgetting what he was going to do from time to time, and difficulty remembering who he had told stories to. The examiner reported that these problems are likely the result of normal aging memory problems that have started early for him. The Veteran dated the start of his memory problems to his first colonoscopy in 2009, with them increasing after another colonoscopy in 2011. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran does not currently meet the criteria for a diagnosis of short-term memory loss. The recent June 2021 VA examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined that, while he experienced subjective symptoms of forgetfulness, he did not have a diagnosis manifested by short-term memory loss. Further, there is no medical evidence of record that has evaluated the Veteran's memory issues and treatment records do not contain a diagnosis of short-term memory loss. Furthermore, the June 2021 VA examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. In reaching this rationale, the examiner noted that memory issues were never reported during active duty and are currently unable to be identified in objective testing. As for secondary service connection, the examiner opined that the claimed condition is less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service-connected migraine condition. There are no medical records linking the Veteran's migraines to memory issues. Furthermore, there is no chronological correlation between his migraines and times when the Veteran has experienced memory issues. The June 2021 VA examiner noted that the Veteran is likely having age-appropriate concerns about being more forgetful. However, this appears to be natural aging and not a diagnosis of short-term memory loss. The Veteran has been able to go to work and maintain a job without issues. Overall, the examiner opined that the memory issues reported by the Veteran is likely a normal aging process and is not severe enough to establish a diagnosis. While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis for a disability manifested by short-term memory loss he is 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. As there is no current disability, the Board need not address the further merits of the Veteran's claim. In the event that the Veteran is diagnosed with a disability manifested by short-term memory loss, he may submit new and material evidence to reopen his claim for service connection. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. In reaching the above decisions, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claims for service connection for a disability manifested by short-term memory loss and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Laura Cochran, Associate 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.