Citation Nr: 21076407 Decision Date: 12/23/21 Archive Date: 12/23/21 DOCKET NO. 18-17 143 DATE: December 23, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a lumbar spine disability is granted. Service connection for a respiratory disability is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Affording the Veteran any benefit of the doubt, he began experiencing symptoms of his current lumbar spine disability during service, and he has continued to experience such symptomatology since his separation from service. 2. Affording the Veteran any benefit of the doubt, he began experiencing symptoms of his current respiratory disability during service, and he has continued to experience such symptomatology since his separation from service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. Service connection for a respiratory disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from December 2007 to December 2008, during which time he was deployed to the Southwest Asia theater of operations. In August 2021, he testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). Service Connection Lumbar Spine and Respiratory Disabilities The Veteran seeks service connection for lumbar spine and respiratory disabilities that he believes onset during his active service. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, a layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Service connection can also be established through application of a statutory presumption for chronic diseases, like arthritis, when manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. If a chronic disease is not manifested to a compensable degree within a year of separation of service, then, generally, a showing of "continuity of symptoms" after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The June 2016 VA back and respiratory examination reports reflect current diagnoses of lumbar spine degenerative arthritis, among others, and mild airway obstruction. As such, the current disability prongs of these claims are met, and the remaining issue is whether these current disabilities can be related to any in-service event or whether they onset therein. At the Veteran's August 2021 Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) hearing, he testified that he began experiencing symptoms of lumbar spine arthritis (back pain) and of mild airway obstruction (shortness of breath) while serving in Iraq and that the symptoms have continued and progressed since that time. He was not able to seek treatment with sick call for mild ailments during the year-long deployment because he was always leaving base to go on missions. The Board finds that the Veteran's lay reports as to the onset of his lower back and respiratory symptoms to be credible, and his lay reports, alone, are sufficient to establish service connection for his lumbar spine and respiratory disabilities. Service connection for a lumbar spine disability and a respiratory disability is warranted, as they are conditions for which a continuity of symptoms has been shown since active duty. In reaching this decision, the Board acknowledges that the June 2016 VA examiners did not opine in favor of service connection for these disabilities. However, while the Board cannot ignore or disregard the VA examiners' medical conclusions [Willis v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 66 (1991)], the Board is free to assess medical evidence and is not compelled to accept a medical opinion. Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992). Notably, the VA back examiner was unable to render an opinion at all because she found it would be speculative to do so without having the Veteran's service treatment records available. As such, she completely ignored the Veteran's lay reports made to her that his symptoms began in 2008. Further, the VA respiratory examiner relied completely on the fact that the Veteran had had a mild smoking habit, one to two decades prior, in determining that a respiratory condition diagnosed in 2016 was less likely than not related to service. Notably, she also noted that she reviewed the Veteran's VA treatment records which corroborate his testimony that he reported to a VA Medical Center as early as May 2009, only five months after returning from Iraq, complaining of shortness of breath. Thus, her opinion also ignored the Veteran's lay reports regarding the onset of his respiratory symptoms. Neither "opinion" considered all relevant evidence, i.e., the Veteran's competent lay reports regarding the onset and history of his symptoms. Thus, the Board finds them inadequate and not probative evidence refuting the Veteran's assertions that the claimed conditions onset in service. In light of the above, the Board finds the Veteran's competent, credible reports of his lumbar spine and respiratory disability symptoms having onset in active service to be more probative than the 2021 VA examiners' opinions which were either incomplete or failed to address all relevant evidence. The weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's lumbar spine and respiratory disability symptoms onset in service and have continued since then. Accordingly, service connection for a lumbar spine disability and a respiratory disability is warranted, as they are current disabilities that onset in active service. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Davidoski, 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.