Citation Nr: 21012086 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-38 048 DATE: March 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability, also claimed as bronchitis or asthma, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s respiratory disorder was not manifested to a compensable degree within one year of service and is not causally related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a respiratory disability, also claimed as bronchitis or asthma, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 4.97. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to December 1967. In January 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the proceeding has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran claims to have a respiratory disability that is a result of his active 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, 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). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrent symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a diagnosis of asthma, 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. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not reflect any treatment for asthma or bronchitis, or any breathing-related disability. At his entrance examination, he reported that he experienced chronic or frequent colds, shortness of breath, and pain or pressure in his chest. The Veteran’s separation examination was negative for chronic or frequent colds, shortness of breath, or pain or pressure in the chest. His lungs and chest revealed no abnormalities on clinical evaluation. He was provided a chest x-ray at discharge, which was negative. There is no evidence of any in-service treatment of bronchitis or asthma, nor evidence of either condition manifesting within one year after separation from active service. The Veteran was first provided an inhaler for breathing difficulties in 2011. His VA treatment records noted restrictive patterns of breathing and shortness of breath, with a pulmonary note indicating a diagnosis of probable asthma in November 2015. There is no probative medical evidence of record that links his current condition, diagnosed more than 45 years after separation from service, to his active service. The Veteran testified that he was exposed to diesel smoke, asbestos, and gunpowder during his service as an armor crewman. He additionally testified that no doctor has linked his breathing difficulties to any in-service exposures. While the Veteran is competent to report on the activities of his service and military occupational specialty, as well as his current diagnosis, he is not competent to provide a medical nexus linking his diagnosis to his active service. The record does not show he has the medical training or credentials to make such determinations. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1372, 1377. While the Veteran believes his asthma is related to his active service, the Board reiterates that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that his asthma began in or was caused by his active service. Accordingly, service connection for a respiratory disability, also claimed as bronchitis or asthma, is denied. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board V. Geer, 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.