Citation Nr: 21076000 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-64 030 DATE: December 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran's osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees is causally or etiologically due to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154(b), 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from January 1966 to January 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) from an April 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. The requested hearing was conducted in August 2021 by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is associated with the claims file. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability. He asserts that his current bilateral knee disorder had its onset in service due to jumping out of helicopters with heavy equipment. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the Veteran's osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees is related to service and concludes that service connection is warranted. Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of 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 the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after the military discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to the period of military service, establishes that the disease was incurred during the active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1113 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). In the present case, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of osteoarthritis of the bilateral knees. See August 2021 private treatment note. Thus, the Veteran has satisfied the first Shedden requirement of a current disability. In a March 2017 statement, the Veteran's representative stated that the Veteran's military occupation specialty (MOS) was a machine gunner and the Veteran and his squad platoon members were transported via helicopter to the landing zones, which required an egress from a height of anywhere from 4 to 6 feet. The Veteran's representative noted that this distance combined with a full combat load, with repeated occurrences, resulted in stress on his knees and legs. It was asserted that the Veteran participated in extensive combat operations. Service records confirm that the Veteran served as a machine gunner, and he participated in multiple combat operations. For example, service personnel records indicate the Veteran, "participated in action against hostile enemy forces DaNang area RVN," as well as at least a dozen additional operations. The Veteran testified that he carried heavy equipment and, along with his platoon, he would have to jump out of a helicopter that hovered various distances above the ground, from 2 to 6 feet, approximately. He testified that he often landed in rice patties, in the water and mud, or sometimes in the sand, carrying the heavy equipment. The Board finds the Veteran's description of jumping from helicopters with heavy equipment is credible and consistent with the circumstances of his service. Furthermore, his personnel records confirm he participated in combat. As such, Shedden element (2) is met. As for Shedden element (3), nexus, the Veteran submitted a private medical opinion, dated August 2021. The Veteran's treating physician opined that carrying heavy equipment and jumping out of helicopters could have contributed to the Veteran's bilateral knee osteoarthritis. Explaining, the physician stated that the Veteran's osteoarthritis is a result of wear and tear, and he has worn out the medial compartments of both knees. The physician noted that the Veteran has had an active life, including carrying heavy equipment and jumping from helicopters while in Vietnam. The Board acknowledges that the private physician's opinion is couched in the speculative term of "could." See Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999) (noting that the use of the term "could," without other rationale or supporting data, is speculative). Here, however, the physician provided a supporting rationale for the opinion, explaining that the type of arthritis the Veteran has is due to wear and tear, and using the Veteran's in-service duties of carrying heavy equipment and jumping from helicopters as an example of wear and tear. There are no medical opinions to the contrary of record. Therefore, resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds no adequate basis to reject the evidence of record that is favorable to the Veteran, based on a lack of credibility or probative value. Madden v. Gober,125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Evans v. West,12 Vet. App. 22, 26 (1998). The Veteran has a current diagnosis, an in-service event with participation in combat, and a medical opinion that relates his current diagnosis to his time in service. Accordingly, resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds that service connection for a bilateral knee disability is granted. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Andersen, 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.