Citation Nr: 21011055 Decision Date: 02/26/21 Archive Date: 02/26/21 DOCKET NO. 11-22 217 DATE: February 26, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for residuals of right hand cold injury also claimed as frostbite is denied. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of left hand cold injury also claimed as frostbite is denied. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of right foot cold injury also claimed as frostbite is denied. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of left foot cold injury also claimed as frostbite is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT The Veteran did not have right or left hand cold injury or right or left foot cold injury, also claimed as frostbite, or symptoms of cold injury during active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for residuals of right hand cold injury also claimed as frostbite are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for residuals of left hand cold injury also claimed as frostbite are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for residuals of right foot cold injury also claimed as frostbite are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 4. The criteria for service connection for residuals of left foot cold injury also claimed as frostbite are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from October 1979 to September 1981. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2010 rating decision of a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). These matters were previously before the Board. In a September 2020 decision the Board reopened the claims of service connection for residuals of cold injury, bilateral feet and hands and remanded these matters for adjudication by the RO on the merits. The Board finds that there was substantial compliance with its remand orders. See Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for residuals of bilateral hand and bilateral feet cold injury also claimed as frostbite The Veteran contends that he has residuals of cold injury to his bilateral hands and feet due to having to sleep in the snow for a night while stationed in Korea. The Veteran also reported recurring problems with his feet, skin, and hands. The Veteran also contends that the fibromas on his feet, removed surgically in 2011, were caused by frostbite and his exposure to cold conditions in Korea. 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, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that there was an in-service injury, event, or disease related to the Veteran’s asserted cold injury residuals, claimed as frostbite of the bilateral hands and feet. The Veteran’s service treatment records contain no complaints or treatment for cold injury residuals or reports of having been exposed to extreme cold. Service treatment records dated June 1981 show blisters to both heels. However, an August 1981 examination showed the Veteran’s skin, feet, and upper extremities were normal. Further, the Veteran asserts that his cold injuries to the feet and hands occurred after he had to sleep in the snow while on winter patrol in Korea after an incident when a sergeant was shot. Service personnel records confirm that he served in Korea. However, the service records do not support the Veteran’s report of being on winter patrol or of any shootings of personnel. The Veteran’s military occupational specialty is noted as wire systems installer and he served in a signal battalion while in Korea. None of which supports his assertion of being on winter patrol. Further, despite requests, the Veteran has not provided any specifics or dates so that further development could be pursued. Thus, there is no corroboration for his asserted incident of cold exposure causing cold injury during service and no indication in service records that he suffered any cold injury to his bilateral feet and hands. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board notes that no VA examination or opinion were obtained but finds that no such development was warranted based on the record. VA is required to provide a claimant with a medical examination or opinion when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran’s service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 79, 81 (2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2). In the present case, there is no evidence of an event, injury or disease in service or during an applicable presumptive period, and no indication of an association between any recurrent symptoms and the Veteran’s service. Accordingly, the duty to assist in providing an examination or opinion was not triggered. Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record is against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for cold injury residuals of the bilateral feet and hands, and the claims are denied. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Sowden, 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.