Citation Nr: 21010183 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 15-01 085 DATE: February 24, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a back disability is denied. Service connection for a left knee disability is denied. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. Service connection for tinnitus is granted. Service connection for bilateral groin lymph node disability is denied. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had diagnosed degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine. 2. Symptoms of degenerative arthritis were not both chronic in service and continuous since service separation. 3. Degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service separation. 4. Degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine was not incurred in or caused by active service. 5. Diagnosed left knee strain was not incurred in or caused by active service. 6. The Veteran experienced acoustic trauma in service. 7. The Veteran experienced some degree of acoustic trauma post-service. 8. The Veteran had a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes. 9. The Veteran did not have chronic symptoms of right ear hearing loss in service or continuous symptoms after service separation. 10. Sensorineural hearing loss did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service separation. 11. Diagnosed bilateral sensorineural hearing loss is not etiologically related to service. 12. Diagnosed tinnitus was incurred in or caused by active service. 13. The Veteran did not have a bilateral groin lymph node disability. 14. Diagnosed other specified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, delusions with significant overlapping mood episodes; bipolar depression; schizoaffective disorder were not incurred in or caused by active service. 15. Diagnosed cannabis use disorder, moderate, is a substance abuse disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5121 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). 2. The criteria for service connection for a left leg disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5121 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). 3. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). 4. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). 5. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral groin lymph node disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1153, 5103, 5103A, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). 6. The criteria for service connection for an acquired physiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1153, 5103, 5103A, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service with the U.S. Marine Corps from August 1971 to August 1974. Unfortunately, the Veteran passed away in August 2020. The Appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Baltimore, Maryland. Jurisdiction over the appeal was subsequently transferred to the VA RO in Detroit, Michigan. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in a June 2018 videoconference hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the record. In August 2018, the Board remanded the claims for VA examinations and for further development. This was accomplished, and the Board finds that it may proceed with further appellate adjudication at this time. See Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (remand not required under Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998), where the Board’s remand instructions were substantially complied with), aff’d, Dyment v. Principi, 287 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a) (2019). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (2019). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that “Congress specifically limits entitlement to service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. In absence of proof a present disability there can be no valid claim.” Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); see also Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143-44 (1992). To this extent, however, the term “disability” refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, rather than the underlying cause of the impairment. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also DORLAND’S ILLUSTRATED MEDICAL DICTIONARY at 526 (32nd ed. 2012) (defining disability as “an incapacity or lack of the ability to functional normally; it may be either physical or mental or both”). In Saunders, the Federal Circuit concluded that “pain is an impairment because it diminishes the body’s ability to function, and that pain need not be diagnosed as connected to a current underlying condition to function as an impairment.” Id.; see also Id. (stating that “a physician’s failure to provide a diagnosis for the immediate cause of a veteran’s pain does not indicate that the pain cannot be a functional impairment that affects a veteran’s earning capacity.”). Ultimately, the Court in Saunders held that, to establish the presence of a disability, a veteran will need to show that his or her pain reaches the level of functional impairment of earning capacity. Id. Arthritis, sensorineural hearing loss, tinnitus, and psychoses are “chronic disease[s]” listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a); therefore, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) apply. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Where the evidence shows a “chronic disease” in service or “continuity of symptoms” after service, the disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service. With a chronic disease shown in service, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service-connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. For the showing of chronic disease in service, there is required a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally, a showing of continuity of symptoms after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) (2019). Where a veteran served ninety days or more of active service, and certain chronic diseases, such as arthritis, become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year after the date of separation from such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a) (2019). While the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumption period, it must be shown, by acceptable lay or medical evidence, that there were characteristic manifestations of the disease to the required degree during that time. Id. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d) (2019). In Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 157 (1993), the Court indicated that 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 does not preclude service connection for a current hearing disability even where hearing was within normal limits on audiometric testing at separation from service. See also Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992) (interpreting that 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 does “not serve as a bar to service connection” where there is an absence of results of an in-service audiometric examination capable of being compared with the regulatory pure tone and speech recognition criteria). Specific to claims for service connection, impaired hearing is considered a disability for VA purposes when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies of 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; the thresholds for at least three of these frequencies are 26 or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2019). In evaluating claims of service connection for hearing loss, it is observed that the threshold for normal hearing is from zero to 20 decibels, with higher threshold levels indicating some degree of hearing loss. Hensley, 5 Vet. App. 155. In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). 1. Service connection for a back disability The Appellant claims that the Veteran’s diagnosed back disability was etiologically related to service. Service treatment records do not show complaints, treatment or a diagnosis of a back disability. VA treatment records show that the Veteran was diagnosed with mild degenerative joint disease by x-ray in May 2004. A November 2013 VA examination of the spine shows a diagnosis of mild degenerative disc disease. The VA examiner found that there was no evidence within service treatment records that showed a back injury or treatment for a back disability. The examiner opined that the current disability was likely due to the normal aging process. A July 2018 videoconference hearing shows the Veteran testified that while he was in the military, he was an amphibious assault vehicle driver, which had little suspension and knocked his body everywhere while operating it. He indicated that operating the vehicle was rough and caused him back pain while in service, but he would bear it and go with it. He believed that his current back disability was related to his service as an amphibious assault driver, and that he experienced back pain since service separation. A May 2019 VA examination of the spine shows the Veteran was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine. During the examination, the Veteran reported that approximately 25 years earlier, he developed low back pain when he was a passenger in a motor vehicle accident. At the time of the examination, the Veteran reported a constant pinching or grabbing sensation and stiffness of the mid to lower back, which made it difficult to rise from a kneeling or sitting position. The Veteran also reported flare-ups which occurred when lifting greater than 20 pounds, which would cause pain that could last the entire day, and reduced his range of motion. Upon review of the Veteran’s claims file, the VA examiner noted that a 2004 x-ray showed degenerative changes of the spine. And on examination of the Veteran, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s diagnosed degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine was less likely than not related to active service. The VA examiner reasoned that service treatment records did not show back pain or a diagnosed disability, with a normal July 1974 separation examination but that the Veteran reported a post service motor vehicle accident that resulted in a back injury. Further, the examiner noted that a 2004 x-ray, when the Veteran was 50 years old, showed degenerative changes of the lumbar spine, which are likely related to age and his post-service motor vehicle accident and not to service. Upon review of all the evidence, lay and medical, the Board finds that symptoms of currently diagnosed degenerative arthritis of the bilateral knees were not chronic in service and continuous since service separation. While service treatment records show complaints of weak knees, with reports of his legs giving out, to include reports of possible trick or locked knee, the Board finds probative the August 2019 VA examination, which shows that while there were complaints of weak knees and knee pain in service, the medical evidence supports the conclusion that a persistent disability was not present in service. The VA examiner reasoned that there was not documentation of an injury that would have been of sufficient class to have caused, 30 years later, the amount of degenerative arthritis seen on radiographs of the bilateral knees. Therefore, the Board finds that symptoms of a degenerative arthritis were not chronic in service and continuous since service separation. The Board finds that degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service separation. The earliest record of diagnosed arthritis is by a May 2004 x-ray report, decades after service separation. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the passage of many years between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is one factor to consider as evidence against a claim of service connection). The Board finds that degenerative arthritis of the lumbar spine was not otherwise incurred in or caused by service. Both a May 2019 VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s current back disability was incurred in or caused by service. In providing the opinion, the VA examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s lay statements, and reviewed the Veteran’s claims file, but found that the Veteran’s back disability was related to a post-service motor vehicle accident and due to his age progression. The November 2013 examiner also noted that the Veteran’s lumbar spine disability was related to the normal aging process. The Board finds, in the aggregate, that both VA examiners’ opinions as to the etiology of the Veteran’s back disability were based on a thorough review of the Veteran’s record, was supported by adequate rationale and is therefore, adequate for decisional purposes. The only other evidence of record tending to relate the Veteran’s currently disability to service are his own statements. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran was competent to describe his symptoms of back pain since service separation without any specialized knowledge or training. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, as a layperson, the Veteran was not competent to diagnose his symptoms as a specific disease, nor is he competent to render a nexus opinion regarding the etiology of any current disorder; both of these determinations require medical expertise. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for a back disability is denied. Because a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019). 2. Service connection for a left leg disability Service treatment records do not show complaints, treatment or diagnosis of a left leg disability. VA treatment records do not show complaints, treatment or diagnosis of a left leg disability. A November 2013 VA examination shows the Veteran did not have a diagnosed left knee disability. A June 2018 videoconference hearing shows the Veteran testified, through his representative, that he believed his July 2014 VA examination to be inadequate. A May 2019 VA examination shows that the Veteran had diagnosed left knee strain. The Veteran described bilateral knee pain behind his kneecaps, with pain worse in the left knee, which was worse with prolonged standing, walking and kneeling. The Veteran used a cane to ambulate. Upon examination of the Veteran, and on review of the Veteran’s claims file, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s left knee strain was less likely than not caused by or incurred in service. The examiner reasoned that service treatment records did not show documentation of any knee pain or disability, and that the Veteran had a normal separation examination of the knee. The Board finds that the weight of the evidence, both lay and medical, shows that diagnosed left knee strain was not incurred in or caused by active service. The Board finds probative the May 2019 VA examination, which found that the Veteran’s left knee disability was less likely than not related to service. The VA examiner reasoned that service treatment records did not show treatment, complaints or a diagnosis of a left knee disability, and the Board notes that post service treatment records did not show complaints of a left leg or knee disability. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the lack of contemporaneous medical records is one fact the Board can consider and weigh against the other evidence, although the lack of such medical records does not, in and of itself, render the lay evidence not credible); Maxson, 230 F.3d at 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the passage of many years between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is one factor to consider as evidence against a claim of service connection). The examiner’s opinions are probative because they are based on an accurate medical history and provide an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Board notes that there are no other medical opinions of record as to this issue. The Board finds that while Veteran is competent to describe symptoms of a left leg disability, the Board finds that the Veteran lacks the medical training and expertise to provide a complex medical opinion as to the onset and etiology for the diagnosis of a left knee strain. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4. Accordingly, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability is not warranted. Because the weight of the evidence is against the claim, the doctrine of the benefit of the doubt is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012) 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019). 3. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss The Appellant contends that the Veteran’s diagnosed bilateral hearing loss was related to acoustic trauma experienced in service. Service treatment records include an enlistment examination, dated February 1971. On the authorized audiological evaluation in February 1971, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 0 -5 -10 X -5 LEFT -5 -5 -10 X -5 Service treatment records also include a February 1972 note, in which the Veteran received ear protective devices for both ears. The Veteran did not have audiological evaluation results listed at separation in July 1974, however, a note of “ENT WNL” is noted. In a November 2013 VA examination, pure tone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 25 30 40 60 60 LEFT 20 25 60 65 65 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 94 percent in the right ear and of 94 percent in the left ear. The Veteran was also diagnosed with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. During the examination, the Veteran reported that he began to experience hearing loss 10 years prior. As an initial matter, the Board finds that the November 2013 VA examination hearing test results show that the Veteran had a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes, as the auditory threshold at 4,000 Hertz was 40 decibels or greater of the bilateral ears. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 (2019). The Board also finds that the Veteran experienced acoustic trauma in service. The Veteran’s DD Form 214 reflects a Marine Corps MOS of 1833, Amtrac Crewman. The Duty MOS Noise Exposure Listing referenced in DVA Fast Letter 10-35 for Modifying the Development Process in Claims for Hearing Loss and/or Tinnitus shows that veterans with a duty MOS similar to that of the Veteran, 18XX Tank and Assault Amphibious Vehicle, had a high probability of exposure to hazardous noise. This evidence shows that hazardous noise exposure is consistent with the circumstances and duties during service as an Amtrac Crewman. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a) (2012). The Board finds that the Veteran also had some degree of occupational noise exposure after service. Within a June 2018 videoconference hearing, the Veteran indicated that he worked as a carpenter for a longtime post-service in two different capacities. The Board finds that the Veteran did not have chronic symptoms of hearing loss in service or continuous symptoms after service separation, and the Board finds that sensorineural hearing loss did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of service separation. While the Veteran and Appellant had provided credible lay evidence of noise exposure in service, the evidence does not show both chronic hearing loss symptoms in service and continuous hearing loss symptoms since service. Evidence shows that the Veteran did not argue having continuous hearing loss symptoms since service separation but rather that the Appellant had known the Veteran to be hard of hearing when they met prior to marrying in 1993, decades after service separation. Maxson, 230 F.3d at 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the passage of many years between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is one factor to consider as evidence against a claim of service connection). The evidence of record does not indicate that sensorineural hearing loss manifested to a compensable degree within one year of service separation to establish presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b). Rather, a July 1974 separation audiogram does not show that hearing loss manifested to a compensable degree within one year of service separation, as the Veteran had hearing within normal limits, and did not have a VA hearing loss disability for VA purposes at that time. The evidence of record does not otherwise establish a nexus between current hearing loss and in-service noise exposure, either by lay or medical evidence. A May 2019 VA addendum opinion shows, that upon review of the Veterans claims file, including service treatment records, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss was less likely than not related to service. The May 2019 VA audiologist discussed that the Veteran had normal hearing in all audiograms conducted during service, to include no significant threshold shifts while in service and noted the Veteran’s in-service acoustic trauma. The Board finds the VA-authorized medical opinion probative as the opinion includes an adequate rationale based on the evidence of record. There are no other medical opinions of record which weigh in favor of the claim. Although the Veteran was competent to describe symptoms of diagnosed right ear hearing loss, insomuch as the Appellant contends that right ear hearing loss was caused by in-service acoustic trauma, the Board finds that she is not competent to render such an opinion, as she lacks the medical training and expertise to provide a complex medical nexus opinion. Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372. The Board has not denied service connection for the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss because his hearing was found to be within normal limits at the time of his separation from service. The Board has denied service connection in this case, based on the lack of evidence of chronicity of hearing loss symptomatology in service and since separation from service, and because the competent, credible, and probative evidence of record does not establish a nexus between current hearing loss and service. The Board notes, further, that in the present case that no increase in hearing threshold levels was shown by in-service audiograms. The holding in Hensley provides that the Board must explain the criteria it used to determine whether a measured worsening of disability constituted an increase in disability in service. See Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 163. In the present case, no increase in disability was shown by service audiograms; thus, the Board finds based on the available evidence that a measurable increase in disability was not shown in service. For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against finding that bilateral hearing loss is etiologically related to active service. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, the claim must be denied, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019). 4. Service connection for tinnitus The Appellant contends that the Veteran’s diagnosed tinnitus was related to exposure to acoustic trauma while in service. After reviewing all the lay and medical evidence, and the Board finds that the Veteran experienced acoustic trauma in service, as discussed above, and that the Veteran also had some degree of occupational noise exposure after service. The Board finds that the Veteran had diagnosed tinnitus. The November 2013 and May 2019 VA examinations and addendum opinions note a diagnosis of tinnitus. The Veteran is capable of, and has, reported that he has tinnitus. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002) (holding that tinnitus is capable of lay observation). In this case, the Board has found that the Veteran is credible in identifying current tinnitus, and that the tinnitus began during service. The Board finds that a May 2019 VA addendum opinion shows that the VA examiner was unable to determine the etiology of tinnitus and that it may lie elsewhere. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the credible lay and medical evidence shows that the Veteran’s tinnitus began during service, so was incurred in service. Resolving all benefit of the doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for tinnitus is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019). 5. Service connection for a bilateral groin lymph node disability The Appellant generally contends that service connection is warranted for a bilateral groin lymph node disability. A November 2013 VA examination shows the Veteran did not have a lymphatic disability. A May 2019 VA examination does not show that the Veteran has a bilateral groin lymph node disability. The VA examiner was unable to make objective findings to explain the Veteran’s subjective complaints. An October 2018 CT scan showed no free fluid or adenopathy identified within the pelvis. The Veteran reported that he had sharp pain of the bilateral groin with activities such as lifting, raking or bending which lasted for approximately five minutes. The VA examiner denoted that the Veteran’s subjective complaints of pain did not impact his or her ability to work. The Board finds that the evidence of record does not show a current diagnosis of a bilateral groin lymph node disability at any point during the pendency of the appeal. While the Veteran had complaints of pain in his groin within VA treatment records, the evidence of record does not also show a functional limitation or functional impairment due to any groin pain. See Saunders, No. 17-1466, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 8467, at *17. The Board, therefore, finds that there is no competent evidence of a diagnosed groin disability at the time of the filing of the claim or during the pendency of the appeal. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The Court has indicated that in the absence of proof of a present 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. Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. The only other evidence of record supporting the Veteran’s contentions are his personal statements, which do not establish the required diagnosis of a current disability. Although lay evidence is acceptable to prove the occurrence of an injury during active duty or symptomatology over a period of time when such symptomatology is within the purview of or may be readily recognized by lay persons, lay testimony is not competent to prove a matter requiring medical expertise. Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469; Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4. Absent a current diagnosis, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for a bilateral groin lymph node disability. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019). 6. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder The Appellant contends that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorders were related to service, specifically, his treatment when punished while in service. Specifically, within June 2018 videoconference hearing testimony, the Veteran reported that while in service, he received punishment, in which his discipline was to be put in the cargo bay of a ship while on the high seas and also resulted in throwing him in a cell. VA treatment records do not show complaints, treatment or diagnosis of a psychiatric disability. Military personnel records show five offenses and punishments while in service, to include sleeping upon his post or sleeping-in. VA treatment records include a December 1998 report in which the Veteran was diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid, chronic and marijuana dependency, continuous. The Veteran was on a commitment order after his house was burned down with him and his wife inside. The Veteran was delusional and did not know where he was committed or when. He had a tattoo of the devil on his arm and indicated that he thought that was why “they burned down [his] home.” He had been admitted to this particular hospital in the past for psychiatric issues. A December 1999 VA examination for non-service connected pension shows the Veteran had diagnosed psychosis, NOS; continuous marijuana use; and substance-dependent personality traits. An April 2014 VA examination shows that the Veteran had diagnosed specified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, delusions with significant overlapping mood episodes; bipolar depression; schizoaffective disorder; and cannabis use disorder, moderate. During the examination, the Veteran reported that he was prescribed medication for his mental health needs, which was great and that he was able to talk to his psychiatrist. He indicated he last received inpatient mental health treatment in 2012 but such records could not be confirmed. He also described a violent standoff with police in May 2013 when he chased a Township Supervisor off his property with a gun, after which police arrived, resulting in a stand off with the use of tear gas, damage to his house and injury to himself. A May 2019 VA medical opinion shows that the Veteran had diagnosed specified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, delusions with significant overlapping mood episodes; bipolar depression; schizoaffective disorder; and cannabis use disorder, moderate. Upon review of the claims file, the VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s current psychiatric diagnoses were incurred in or caused by active service. The VA examiner noted the Veterans five offenses and punishments while in service, and that the earliest mental health treatment post-service of record was in December 1998. The examiner reasoned that while the Veteran had in-service discipline, the examiner indicated that it would be speculative to say that those infractions stemmed from any psychiatric illness that may or may not have been present at the time, as the Veteran’s service treatment records were silent for psychiatric treatment. The Board finds that the weight of the evidence, both lay and medical, shows that diagnosed specified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder, delusions with significant overlapping mood episodes; bipolar depression; schizoaffective disorder were not incurred in or caused by active service. The Board finds probative the May 2019 VA medical opinion, which found that the Veteran’s psychiatric disabilities were less likely than not related to service. The VA examiner reasoned that service treatment records did not show treatment, complaints or a diagnosis of a left knee disability, and the Board notes that post service treatment records did not show evidence of psychiatric disability until 1998, many years after service separation. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the lack of contemporaneous medical records is one fact the Board can consider and weigh against the other evidence, although the lack of such medical records does not, in and of itself, render the lay evidence not credible); Maxson, 230 F.3d at 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the passage of many years between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is one factor to consider as evidence against a claim of service connection). The examiner’s opinions are probative because they are based on an accurate medical history and provide an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Peake, 22 Vet. App. at 304. The Board notes that there are no other medical opinions of record as to this issue. The Board finds that while Veteran is competent to describe symptoms of a psychiatric disability, the Board finds that the Veteran lacks the medical training and expertise to provide a complex medical opinion as to the onset and etiology for the diagnosis a psychiatric disability. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377 n.4. Lastly, the Board notes that compensation shall not be paid if a claimed disability was the result of the person’s own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 38 U.S.C. §§ 105, 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (n), 3.301(c) (2017). With respect to alcohol and drug abuse, section 8052 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-508, § 8052, 104 Stat. 1388, 1388-351, prohibits, effective for claims filed after October 31, 1990, payment of compensation for a disability that is a result of a veteran’s own alcohol or drug abuse. Moreover, section 8052 amended 38 U.S.C. § 105 (a) to provide that, with respect to claims filed after October 31, 1990, an injury or disease incurred during active service will not be deemed to have been incurred in the line of duty if the injury or disease was a result of the person’s own willful misconduct, including abuse of alcohol or drugs. See 38 U.S.C. § 105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (n), 3.301(d) (2017). Thus, the Board finds that service-connection cannot be warranted for cannabis use disorder, moderate. See Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000). (Continued on the next page)   Accordingly, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder is not warranted. Because the weight of the evidence is against the claim, the doctrine of the benefit of the doubt is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012) 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019). K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. R. Woodarek 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.