Citation Nr: 21013480 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 18-25 366 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for syphilis is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for cervical strain from November 18, 2016 to January 31, 2018, and in excess of 10 percent thereafter is remanded. FINDING OF FACT During the period on appeal the Veteran has not had active syphilis or any residuals of syphilitic disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for syphilis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1990 to December 1992. Service Connection Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection may also 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). To establish service connection for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in service, or to establish service connection based on aggravation in service of a disease or injury which pre-existed service, there must be (1) of the current existence of the disability for which service connection is being claimed; (2) competent evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in active service; and (3) competent evidence of a nexus or connection between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated in service. Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 236 (2010); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2009); cf. Gutierrez v. Principi, 19 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2004) (citing Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999)). 1. Entitlement to service connection for syphilis is denied. The Veteran filed a claim to establish service connection for syphilis in November 2016. In August 2017, the Veteran contended that he had the syphilis virus since prior to service. He stated that because he had blood work done at Juncos Municipal Hospital, he tested positive for the condition. He reports he was treated for the disease. According to the Veteran, the tests that were performed prior to induction were nonreactive, but as he went through service, they became reactive. He also reports that there were not any tests performed before induction. He has stated his belief that he may have gotten the wrong results from the hospital and he was forced to go through the discomfort of being treated for the syphilis virus. While the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran’s contentions, the objective medical evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have a current disability of syphilis or any residuals attributed to syphilis. The Board surmises that the Veteran’s claim is based on his in-service test results for syphilis; however, the Veteran’s contentions do not include any details regarding any post-service syphilis or residuals. In March 2017, a VA examiner reported that while the Veteran had previously had syphilis, the condition had resolved in 1992. This was verified by a March 2019 VA examination. Moreover, the March 2017 examiner reported the Veteran did not have any symptoms or residuals attributable to syphilis. The Board notes that while this claim was remanded in August 2018, the remand did not directly call into issue whether the Veteran’s syphilis was currently reactive. At this March 2017 examination, the Veteran reported that months prior to enlisting, he was found with reactive tests for syphilis and a genital lesion. He stated that he was given penicilin at the Juncos hospital in Puerto Rico. He stated that while in active service he underwent new “laboratories” [sic] that were reported as reactive with titers 1:9. 1:4, so he was given injections of penicillin. He denied history of sexual intercourse during active duty, and he also denied reactivation of his syphilis condition since 1992. Moreover, he denied, new treatments or administration of penicillin since the year 1992. The Board concedes that the Veteran’s service treatment records reflect that he was treated for syphilis in 1992; however, post medical records indicate the Veteran has not had an active syphilis or residuals of the disease since discharge. As there is no competent evidence, including both lay statements and medical evidence, that would establish the current disability element with regard to this syphilis claim, entitlement to service connection for syphilis cannot be granted on any basis. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (holding that there can be no valid claim for service connection “[i]n the absence of proof of a present disability”). As service connection is not warranted as a matter of law, further discussion is not warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND 2. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for cervical strain from November 18, 2016 to January 31, 2018, and in excess of 10 percent thereafter is remanded. The most recent Statement to the Case for this claim was in April 2018. Since then, evidence has been added to the claims file that is pertinent to the claim for increase for the Veteran’s cervical strain disability, including a May 2019 MRI of the Veteran’s cervical spine. To that extent a remand is needed for an SSOC so that the RO may address this new pertinent evidence. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: (Continued on the next page)   1. Obtain any outstanding private and VA treatment records and associate them with the Veteran’s electronic claims file. 2. Readjudicate the claim for increase rating for cervical strain, with application of all appropriate laws and regulations, and consideration of any additional information obtained as a result of this remand. All evidence received since the April 2018 Statement of the Case should be considered. If the decision remains adverse to the Veteran, he should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and afforded an appropriate period of time within which to respond thereto. SCOTT W. DALE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Wade 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.