Citation Nr: A21020436 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 190829-28585 DATE: December 22, 2021 ORDER Service connection for esophageal disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that an esophageal disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an esophageal disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from June 1967 to October 1967. That period is considered active duty because service connection has been granted for tinnitus and hearing loss disabilities incurred during that period. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a). The Veteran's claim was denied in the September 2018 and August 2019 rating decisions. The Veteran appealed the August 2019 rating decision directly to the Board and chose the Hearing docket. See August 2019 VA Form 10182. The Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2019 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the June 2021 Board hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). The Veteran contends that he incurred his esophageal disability in service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In the August 2019 rating decision, the AOJ made a favorable finding that the Veteran had a confirmed diagnosis of GERD, following an esophagogastroduodenoscopy. In general, the Board is bound by favorable findings in the Rating Decision on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a). Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service. Based on a review of the record, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are silent for any esophageal complaints, treatment, or diagnosis during his ACDUTRA military service. The Veteran's September 1967 separation examination report is silent for any pertinent defects or diagnoses as well. Private treatment records indicate that the earliest record of the Veteran's relevant complaints was in December 2006. VA medical records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with GERD and Barrett's esophagus until March 2017. See July 2018 Disability Benefits Questionnaire. At the June 2021 hearing, the Veteran testified that he has had GERD since service, but that he did not seek treatment during service because of a culture of stoicism in service and a concern that seeking treatment would prevent him from succeeding. The Veteran's service treatment records document treatment for other complaints, including heat cramps, a cold and elbow and shoulder problems. On the Report of Medical History completed at separation, the Veteran checked "no" to having frequent indigestion or stomach, liver or intestinal trouble. The September 1967 separation examination included a normal evaluation of all systems, including the stomach. There were no pertinent defects or diagnoses noted. The Veteran's service treatment records do not corroborate his contentions of experiencing symptoms related to an esophageal disorder in service. However, the absence of evidence does not automatically constitute substantive negative evidence. Buczynski v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 221 (2011). Further, the absence of contemporaneous medical records does not, in and of itself, render lay testimony not credible. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006). The Veteran testified that he did not seek treatment for GERD-related symptoms during service because of a combination of the culture and a concern that seeking treatment would prevent him from succeeding. However, the contemporaneous treatment records show that he did seek treatment for other complaints; a cold, heat cramps and shoulder and elbow problems. In addition, on the Report of Medical History completed by the Veteran at separation, he answered "no" to having any related complaints. The Veteran was willing to report symptoms related to heat cramps and a cold and sought treatment for elbow and shoulder problems during service. The Board finds it reasonable that he would have sought treatment for complaints related to an esophageal condition, had such symptoms existed. The absence of this expected evidence weighs against the Veteran's contention of in-service incurrence of symptoms. Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). The Board has reviewed the medical articles submitted by the Veteran in June 2021. The articles suggest an association between GERD and chronic pain in the temporomandibular joint, anxiety, poor sleep, and/or depression, which the Veteran contends he experienced in service. The articles, however, merely suggests an "association" rather than causation among the risk factors. Furthermore, the Veteran is not service connected for any of the associated conditions. Consequently, the Board gives no probative weight to the medical articles. The Board concludes that, while the appellant has a diagnosis of an esophageal disability, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Service connection for an esophageal disability is denied. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. E. Bresler 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.