Citation Nr: 21006200 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 16-36 193 DATE: February 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT A back disorder did not manifest in service and is unrelated to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW A back disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1979 to December 1983. The Veteran did not appear at the Travel Board hearing, which was scheduled for June 2019. The Veteran was provided notice of the hearing in May 2019 and the notice was not returned as undeliverable. He did not present good cause for his failure to appear, nor did he request that the Board hearing be rescheduled; therefore, the appeal will proceed as the hearing request is considered to have been withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). The record also reflects that the Veteran received a letter, dated in October 2020, indicating that he could request a virtual tele-hearing instead of waiting for a Travel Board hearing. Upon further review and as explained above, the Veteran does not have a pending hearing request. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder The Veteran asserts that his claimed back disorder is directly related to service, specifically the result of parachuting, repelling from a helicopter and carrying an 80-pound pack during training. Veterans are entitled to compensation if they develop a disability “resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty.” 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (wartime service), 1131 (peacetime service). To establish entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits, a Veteran must show: “(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 -the so-called ‘nexus’ requirement.” Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. See Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1, 8 (1999). The Veteran has not been diagnosed with a disorder that is identified as a “chronic disease” under 38 U.S.C. § 1101 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a). Personnel records confirm that the Veteran was awarded the Navy/Marine Corps Parachute Insignia. The Veteran is competent to report relevant in-service symptoms and experiences. A review of service treatment records shows no relevant complaints, objective findings, treatment, diagnosis or any other manifestations of a back disorder. Clinical evaluation at examinations in February 1981, July 1983 and December 1983 upon separation revealed a normal spine and musculoskeletal system. In accompanying Reports of Medical History, the Veteran specifically denied recurrent back pain and any other relevant symptoms. A September 2013 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with lumbar strain. The examiner notes the Veteran’s reports of in-service injury and continuity of pain. Ultimately, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s lumbar strain was less likely than not related to his active service, citing service treatment records, examination findings, and the claims file. The examiner explained that the lumbar strain is likely attributable to the degenerative process since the Veteran was presenting 30 years after service and without records demonstrating an acute bone injury. In adjudicating a claim, the Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. See Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. The former is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while the latter is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997). The probative value of a medical opinion primarily comes from its reasoning; threshold considerations are whether a person opining is suitably qualified and sufficiently informed. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). In this case, the Board accepts the September 2013 VA examiner’s opinion that the Veteran’s lumbar strain is less likely than not related to his service as highly probative medical evidence on this point. The Board notes that the examiner rendered the opinion after thoroughly reviewing the claims file and relevant medical records. The examiner noted the Veteran’s pertinent history and provided a reasoned analysis of the case. See Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 40 (1994). With respect to the Veteran’s assertions regarding onset and continuity, the Board finds these statements to be far less probative than the opinion of the VA medical professional, as it is far more detailed and reasoned. The Board finds that the probative value of the lay assertions is outweighed by the clinical evidence of record. In addition, the Veteran’s reports of continuous symptoms are directly contradicted by clinical evaluation upon separation and his own specific denials of recurrent back pain throughout service and upon separation. The evidence of record suggests that the Veteran was not identified with a chronic back disorder during service. There is no medical evidence of record documenting manifestations of lumbar strain or any other relevant disorders in service. Physical examination throughout service and upon separation revealed a normal spine and musculoskeletal systems. The Veteran specifically denied recurrent back pain or any other relevant symptoms during service and upon separation. (Continued on the next page)   The Board finds that the contemporaneous medical records outweigh the post-service lay statements of the Veteran with respect to a direct link between his lumbar strain and active service. The medical evidence of record is afforded greater probative value than the after-the-fact lay assertions of the Veteran. In sum, there is insufficient competent and probative evidence linking the Veteran’s lumbar strain (or any other relevant disorder) to service. The contemporaneous records establish that the spine and musculoskeletal system were normal throughout service. The more probative evidence establishes that the Veteran did not have lumbar strain or a relevant disorder during service, that such disorder is not related to any event in service, and that it is otherwise unrelated to service. The evidence establishes that the remote onset of lumbar strain is unrelated to service. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a back disorder. L.M. YASUI Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W. R. Stephens, 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.