Citation Nr: 21012330 Decision Date: 03/04/21 Archive Date: 03/04/21 DOCKET NO. 15-20 271 DATE: March 4, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left leg disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from July 1980 to July 1983. 2. A current left leg disorder has not been shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW A left leg disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Turning to the evidence, the first element of service connection – a current disability – is not met, as no medical professional has diagnosed the Veteran with a left leg disorder during the appeal period. The service treatment records (STRs) show multiple notations of a right fibula fracture during service, with only one entry indicating that it was a left fibula fracture. It is unclear if a left fibula fracture occurred during his service, but regardless, the medical records fail to show any residual left leg symptoms. Specifically, a May 2014 VA examiner found no left leg symptoms. The Veteran denied left leg pain during the examination, and stated it was his right leg that he fractured during service. A review of the VA treatment and private medical records throughout the appeal period fail to show any diagnosis of or treatment for any left leg disorder, although he was treated for an injury to the right knee. The Veteran has claimed to have left leg pain or, alternatively, that he always intended to file an application for a right leg disorder rather that a left leg. He has filed separate claims for each disability, but clearly appealed the left leg (claimed as left fibula) disorder to the Board. Therefore, any claim of a right leg disorder is not before the Board at this time. The Veteran is competent to describe his observations and report pain experienced in-service or during the appeal period. Further, pain alone can constitute a disability if it results in functional impairment. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However here, multiple treatment records, many of which focused on orthopedic concerns regarding the right leg, do not contain any complaints of left leg pain. Further, at no point has the Veteran explained or a medical professional shown that his claimed left leg pain causes any functional impairment. The record does not show that range of motion is impaired, or that left leg pain reduces his earning capacity in any way. As such, the first element of service connection – the existence of a present disability – is not met, and service connection is not warranted. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that his left leg disorder was caused by service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current disorder, or to diagnose himself due to the medical complexity of the matter involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examinations obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Brendan A. Evans, 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.