Citation Nr: 21075435 Decision Date: 12/20/21 Archive Date: 12/20/21 DOCKET NO. 17-08 285 DATE: December 20, 2021 ORDER Service connection for small bowel resection with a recurrent gastro-intestinal condition is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's recurrent gastro-intestinal condition had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for small bowel resection with a recurrent gastro-intestinal condition 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 Navy from February 1975 to November 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in December 2019. This matter was remanded by the Board in April 2020 for additional development. 1. Service connection for small bowel resection with a recurrent gastro-intestinal condition. To establish service connection for a claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and current disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also, Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting in a disease or injury that is incurred in or aggravated by active-duty military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The Veteran contends that during active service he was involved in a motor vehicle accident, which resulted in abdominal surgery and a seven day stay at the San Francisco General Hospital. He asserts that the trauma caused by the same in-service motor vehicle accident and subsequent abdominal surgery also caused a gastro-intestinal condition that has been recurrent since service. See also Form 9, February 2017. Alternatively, the Veteran, through his representative, contends that his gastro-intestinal conditions are due to in-service exposure from spraying aluminum paint. See Appellate Brief, October 2021. During the December 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that the surgery removed 3 feet of his small intestine and a painful 12-inch scar now exists on his lower stomach. The Veteran also testified that where his military personnel records show that he was AWOL, he was actually being hospitalized due to the motor vehicle accident. The Veteran is competent to report his symptoms in and since service and the Board finds his testimony credible. See 38C.F.R. §3.159(a); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994) (noting that a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The Veteran's brother also submitted a statement in support of the Veteran's claim asserting that he remembers his parents getting a call from the Veteran while he was in service telling them that he was in a bad car accident, which required surgery and put him in a coma for several days. See Buddy Statement, December 2019. Service treatment records note complaints of nausea, vomiting, upset stomach, and diarrhea in May and November 1975 and again in July 1976. Further, medical evidence shows that the Veteran has a diagnosis of chronic diarrhea, Crohn's disease, and history of colon polyps. See VA Examination, June 2020. A VA treatment record from November 2009 states that the Veteran's bowel obstruction is believed to be related to adhesions from prior surgery in the 1970s for trauma from a motor vehicle accident. The Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report symptom onset and challenges he experiences as a result of his gastro-intestinal conditions. The Veteran's statements are entitled to probative weight, as they are internally consistent and consistent with other evidence of record, showing that the Veteran reported gastro-intestinal symptoms in and since service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board finds that this is especially so given that the Veteran reported the onset of his gastro-intestinal symptoms in service in the context of seeking medical care. In its role as a finder of fact, the Board finds the Veteran's account of having gastro-intestinal symptoms during and since service credible. The Board acknowledges the negative nexus VA opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's gastro-intestinal conditions. However, the Board finds this examination inadequate as it does not discuss the Veteran's in-service complaints or the November 2009 treatment note. As the competent and credible lay and medical evidence shows that the Veteran's recurrent gastro-intestinal conditions had its onset in service, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Leigh, Attorney Advisor 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.