Citation Nr: 21005776 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 11-25 740 DATE: February 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a back disorder began during an honorable period of active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1101, 1110, 1112, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.312. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 12, 1989 to February 27, 2009. Pursuant to a December 2009 and November 2020 Administrative Decisions, the Veteran’s period of service from July 12, 1989 to June 12, 2003 is found to be honorable for VA purposes. The period of service from June 13, 2003 to February 27, 2009 is found to be dishonorable (bad conduct) for VA purposes. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2013, the Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the transcript is of record. In May 2014 and June 2017, the Board remanded this matter for additional development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder The Veteran contends that his back disorder is due to an in-service motor vehicle accident in 2004. In an April 2013 statement, it is argued that his period of honorable service should extend to May 31, 2007 and that he had treatment and complaints regarding his back between 2004 and 2006 which should be considered during a period of honorable service. In a December 2009 and November 2020 Administrative Decision, the RO determined that the Veteran’s discharge for the period of service from June 13, 2003 to February 27, 2009 was under dishonorable conditions (bad conduct) for VA purposes and was a bar to benefits. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Generally, service connection requires: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). A discharge or release from active service under conditions other than dishonorable is a prerequisite to entitlement to VA pension or compensation benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (18); 38 C.F.R. § 3.12 (a). Service department findings (i.e., the Army, Navy and Air Force) are binding upon VA for purposes of establishing an individual's service. VA does not have the authority to alter the findings of the service department. 38 C.F.R. § 3.203 (a). VA has no authority to alter the claimant's discharge classification-the claimant's recourse is with the service department. Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416 (1994). Nothing in the record indicates that the service department has upgraded the character of the Veteran's discharge. The Veteran’s service treatment records confirm a motor accident occurred in 2004. The Veteran’s service treatment records note complaints and treatment for back pain in April 2004, April 2005, and May 2006. The treatment records diagnose the Veteran’s back pain as Somatic Dysfunction and strain. The noted back disorders and the motor accident occurred during the Veteran’s period of dishonorable service. The service treatment records do not show diagnosis, treatment, complaints, or injury of a back disorder during the Veteran’s honorable period of service. As noted, the character of discharge for the June 2003 to February 2009 period of service is a bar to VA benefits and, as such, no compensation based on such service is permitted. The claim for service connection for a back condition is denied. K. J. ALIBRANDO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Lang, 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.