Citation Nr: 21076815 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 18-23 967 DATE: December 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity is denied. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record does not show a current disability of peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity proximate to or during the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity have not been met. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to January 1969. This case comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2016 rating decision which, in pertinent part, denied service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity. In February 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In March 2021, the Board remanded this claim to determine whether the Veteran had active service within the 12 nautical miles of the Republic of Vietnam, or any similar area identified in the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019. Following remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) determined that the Veteran had such service. Therefore, the Board finds that there was substantial compliance with the remand directive. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). The Board's decision also remanded claims of service connection for coronary artery disease, residuals of prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, and peripheral neuropathy of the right upper extremity. An April 2021 rating decision granted service connection for these disabilities and, thus, these claims are not pending before the Board. Following the April 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case, the Veteran filed a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, for this claim. The Veteran, however, did not check the "OPT-IN from SOC/SSOC" box, which would have withdrawn this claim from the legacy system. In November 2021, the AOJ certified the case to the Board. Therefore, the Board will process this claim under the legacy system. The Board notes that treatment records were associated with the Veteran's claims file after the April 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case. These treatment records pertain to jaw pain, cardiology conditions, and sleep apnea, and are not related to peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity. The Board finds that these records are not pertinent to the issue in this case to require a Supplemental Statement of the Case. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.31. Service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity The Veteran asserts that service connection is warranted for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity secondary to service-connected diabetes mellitus. Service connection may be granted on a secondary basis for a current disability that is proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The Veteran is service-connected for diabetes mellitus. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). A current disability must result in functional loss and reduction of earning capacity. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1362 (2018). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection as Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. See Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. The Board must consider competent lay evidence in determining whether a veteran has a current disability. "Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional." Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Reasonable doubt, i.e., an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, will be resolved in the Veteran's favor. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Veteran's service treatment records do not show any abnormalities with the left upper extremity prior to service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran was in sound condition at entry to service. The Veteran's treatment records show a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. While these records also show various diagnoses of neuropathy, polyneuropathy, and peripheral neuropathy, they do not specifically indicate neuropathy in the left upper extremity. These records show treatment related to neuropathy in the lower extremities, to include a February 2014 VA record, but not related to neuropathy in the upper extremities. At a March 2016 VA examination, Dr. J.R.-F. reviewed the Veteran's claims file and performed an in-person examination of the Veteran. The Veteran reported intermittent pain in the lower extremities, but reported no symptoms in the left upper extremity. A neurological examination showed no abnormalities in the left upper extremity. Dr. R.-F. identified no paralysis in the left upper extremity. At the February 2021 hearing, the Veteran reported that he was still having issues with his right arm. He reported "sporadic" issues with the left arm, but described the right arm as "more continuous." After evaluating the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current disability of peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity proximate to or during the pendency of the claim. The Board has considered the Veteran's hearing testimony of experiencing "sporadic" issues with the left arm. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms in the left arm, he does not have the medical expertise to attribute these symptoms to peripheral neuropathy. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1376-77. The evidence of record, to include Dr. R.-F.'s examination and the treatment records, does not show a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy in the left upper extremity. To the extent that this testimony could be attributed to peripheral neuropathy, the evidence of record does not show functional loss. See Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1362. (Continued on the next page.) For the above reasons, the Board finds that the probative evidence is against service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the left upper extremity. Accordingly, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application, and the claim must be denied. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Ormson, 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.