Citation Nr: 21074851 Decision Date: 12/16/21 Archive Date: 12/16/21 DOCKET NO. 16-41 159 DATE: December 16, 2021 ORDER Service connection for residuals of a mouth injury, to include dental trauma, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from March 1971 to January 1972. 2. A compensable dental disorder as defined by VA regulations is not shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW Residuals of a mouth injury, to include dental trauma, was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.381, 4.150 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In the August 2018 VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge via videoconference. The hearing was scheduled for October 2018 but he requested that it be rescheduled. In November 2018, the Board remanded the issue for further development. In September 2021, he was asked to confirm his desire to have a hearing and advised that if he did not respond, the Board would assume he no longer wanted a hearing. No response was received; therefore, the Board determines that the hearing request is withdrawn. Turning to the applicable laws and regulations, the dental conditions for which service-connected compensation benefits are available are set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, DCs 9900-9916. These conditions include loss of whole or part of the mandible, nonunion or malunion of the mandible, loss of whole or part of the ramus, loss of whole or part of the maxilla, nonunion or malunion of the maxilla, loss of the condyloid or coronoid process, or loss of any part of the hard palate. Compensation is also available for loss of teeth only if such is due to loss of substance of body of maxilla or mandible. See Simmington v. West, 11 Vet. App. 41 (1998). For loss of the teeth, bone loss through trauma or disease, such as osteomyelitis, must be shown for compensable purposes. In addition, to be compensable, the lost masticatory surface for any tooth cannot be restorable by suitable prosthesis. Absent a demonstration of dental trauma, service connection may be considered solely for the purpose of determining entitlement to dental examinations or outpatient dental treatment. See Woodson v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 352, 354 (1995). A claim for service connection for a dental disorder is also a claim for VA outpatient dental treatment. See Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302 (1993). Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease will be considered service connected solely for establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment as provided in 38 C.F.R. § 17.161. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(a). Replaceable missing teeth, treatable carious teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not disabling, and may be considered service connected solely for the purpose of determining entitlement to VA dental examination or outpatient dental treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381. As the Veteran does not have loss of substance of the mandible or maxilla, or loss of teeth due to bone loss from trauma or disease, he does not have a dental disability for which monthly compensation may be granted. The Veteran asserts that he sustained dental trauma and/or injury to his mouth in service. Service treatment records (STRs) confirm that at his separation examination, he reported a history of head injury, which was clarified to include two concussions from playing football. No mouth injury was documented in STRs, including in dental records. Moreover, the Veteran has described different injuries as causing the problems. In a March 2013 statement, he stated that he experienced broken teeth when struck in the mouth while leading a combat training class during basic training at Fort Dix. However, in a March 2020 VA dental note, he described being thrown to the ground by artillery and experiencing a concussion in 1971. Nevertheless, in light of the medical and lay evidence that the Veteran sustained some sort of head injury in service, the Board finds that the criterion of an in-service incurrence is met. However, the evidence does not show that he has a currently diagnosed dental disorder compensable under VA regulations. A March 2020 dental treatment note documents dental problems since the 1990s with a history of three root canals. He reported experiencing pain and sensitivity, and the dentist found dental caries. Replaceable missing teeth, treatable carious teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not disabling, and may be considered service connected solely for the purpose of determining entitlement to VA dental examination or outpatient dental treatment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381. But compensation requires loss of substance of the mandible or maxilla, or loss of teeth due to bone loss from trauma or disease. Treatment notes do not show loss of a portion of the maxilla or ramus or impairment of the mandible. While he has pain and sensitivity and ongoing dental issues, the medical evidence does not document loss of teeth due to bone loss from trauma or disease. Thus, the Veteran does not have a dental disability for which compensation may be granted. The Board has considered the lay statements that he has a dental disorder caused by service. The Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matter involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examinations obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal for service connection for a dental disorder is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. M. Schaefer, 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.