Citation Nr: 21013663 Decision Date: 03/10/21 Archive Date: 03/10/21 DOCKET NO. 11-27 574 DATE: March 10, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left inguinal hernia is denied. FINDING OF FACT Based on the evidence of record failing to show or to suggest that the Veteran’s left inguinal hernia was either incurred due to or aggravated by any injury sustained in the line of duty, the appellant has not attained a “veteran” status for the purposes of service connection for the claimed disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left inguinal hernia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1110, 1131, 1153; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.4, 3.303, 3.304, 3.306. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran honorably served on active duty from April 1981 to April 1984 and in the Army Reserve from April 1984 to November 2007, to include a period of active duty service from January 2003 to April 2004. In an October 2012 rating decision, the Regional Office (RO) denied his claim for service connection for left inguinal hernia. The Veteran appealed. Following the November 2016 and August 2020 Board remands for further development, the appeal now returns to the Board. In seeking service connection for his left inguinal hernia first noted upon his April 2007 reserve retention physical examination report, the Veteran has not advanced any specific contention, apart from expressing his general disagreement with the denial of his claim. Upon considering all evidence of record viewed in the light of pertinent laws, the Board has found that service connection for left inguinal hernia is not warranted. In sum, in order to qualify for VA disability compensation benefits, a claimant first must establish “veteran” status. See Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473, 484 (2006). To that end, service on active duty generally satisfies this fundamental legal requirement, but reserve service does not automatically confer a “veteran” status for the purposes of compensating the claimed disability that arises from the period of reserve service. See Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 172 (2010). Rather, for the reasons explained below, establishing status as a “veteran” in this case requires the Veteran to show that his left inguinal hernia was incurred due to a specific injury sustained during his duty hours in the Reserve. However, the evidence of record at most shows that his left inguinal hernia was coincidental to the period of his Reserve service, which is insufficient to meet the legal criteria for an award of service connection in this case. Service connection generally may be granted for a disability incurred in, caused by, or otherwise etiologically related to military service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303-3.310. “Service connection” is a complex legal term connoting many factors, but essentially means that a particular injury or disease originating during service had caused a post-service disability, that is, a present disability that must be shown by the evidence of record to had been incurred in or coincident to service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). This means that service connection may not be awarded for every sign, symptom, complaint, treatment, injury, disease, and/or diagnosis merely noted in service and conceivably connected to service. Rather, establishing an entitlement to service connection is subject to multiple legal criteria specific to the circumstances of each case. Although the spirit of the Veterans Law is enabling rather than preclusive, the law imposes specific limitations in cases where Reserve service is involved. In these cases, establishing an entitlement to service connection for a claimed disability requires a claimant to establish his status as the “veteran” for VA benefit purposes for every claimed disability for the period of Reserve service based on which his claim is predicated. See Cropper v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 450, 452 (1994). The only exception to this general rule arises in cases, unlike here, where the claimed disability resulted from, was proximately caused by, or aggravated by another disability that is already service-connected, which has not been expressly alleged by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the evidence of record in this case. For VA benefit purposes, a “veteran” is “a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service.” See 38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d). “Active” service includes the periods of: (1) active duty; (2) active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; or (3) any period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(24). Of particular note, the law makes a clear distinction between the periods of service on active duty in the regular military components and periods of active or inactive duty for training during service in the Reserve. Outside the periods of service on active duty in the regular military components, service connection may be granted only for a disability incurred or aggravated due to a disease or injury sustained in the line of duty. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(a), (d); Harris v. West, 13 Vet. App. 509, 511 (2000); Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 466, 470 (1995). Moreover, service connection claims arising from the periods of INACDUTRA are further limited only to disabilities incurred due to or aggravated by an injury (but not a disease) that must be shown to had been sustained in line of duty. The phrase “in the line of duty” specifically excludes the periods during the off-duty hours, to include any time between the weekend and annual drills in the Reserve, apart from the periods of traveling to and from a unit for such duty. Of further note, in establishing the “veteran” status for VA benefits purposes, the law places the burden of proof on the Veteran. See Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 171-75 (2010); Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40, 44 (2010). As such, certain legal doctrines, such as presumption of aggravation placing the burden of proof on VA to affirmatively disprove the Veteran’s claim, do not apply to the periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304, 3.306. It follows that the issue before the Board in this appeal is whether the Veteran’s left inguinal hernia was incurred due to a specific injury during his duty hours in the Reserve, which ultimately is not shown, suggested, or even alleged in this case. Here, the Veteran’s Reserve service treatment records (STRs) include an April 2007 reserve retention physical examination reflecting a diagnosis of indirect left inguinal hernia, asymptomatic. An August 2007 separation physical examination reflects a noted history of indirect left inguinal hernia and the confirmed ongoing diagnosis. The post active duty service VA treatment records from April 2004 to December 2020 (received from San Juan VA medical Center) reflect a February 2011 consultation for hernia repair pre-surgery report, noting the Veteran’s report of pain in the left inguinal area. An August 2011 VA surgery consultation note reflects an annotation of history of an inguinal hernia for 4 years, which began to bother Veteran in early 2011. This evidence shows that the left inguinal hernia, first noted in April 2007, remained asymptomatic until approximately early 2011. By implication, this evidence fails to suggest that the Veteran’s hernia either had pre-existed his reserve service or was aggravated (meaning made worse beyond its natural progression) during the period between the April 2007 Veteran’s physical examination first noticing hernia and his discharge from the Reserve in November 2007. Likewise, the evidence of record fails to suggest that the Veteran’s left inguinal hernia was incurred due to a specific injury during his duty hours in the Reserve. Of note, a February 2011 pre-surgery note reflects a statement that “hernia occurs when part of an internal organ bulges through a weakness in the muscles of the abdominal wall.” The Board observes that, as a matter of common knowledge, organ bulging may occur due to strenuous activities such as lifting heavy objects, which is consistent with physically arduous general military duties. However, nothing in the record suggests that the weakness in the Veteran’s muscles of his abdominal wall, which is the underlying pathology of hernia, was caused by any specific injury during inactive duty for training or active duty for training. His Reserve STRs and his military service personnel file are silent as to any signs, complaints, symptoms, treatments, or diagnoses that may be associated with an injury resulting in the weakness of his abdominal wall muscles. His post-service VA treatment records also fail to suggest that the Veteran’s hernia may be attributable to any specific injury, let alone any specific injury during his reserve duty hours. Finally, the Veteran himself has not even alleged otherwise or pointed out such an injury. As such, the evidence of record at most shows that the Veteran’s left inguinal hernia was incidental to the period of his reserve service rather than specifically occurring during inactive duty for training or active duty for training. Based on the foregoing discussion, the Board finds that the evidence of record ultimately fails to show that the Veteran’s left inguinal hernia was either incurred due to or aggravated by a specific injury sustained in the line of duty during his service in the Army Reserve, or otherwise may have had been incurred due to any disease or injury sustained during his service on active duty. By implication of the former findings, the Board further finds that the “veteran” status for the purposes of service connection for the Veteran’s left inguinal hernia has not been achieved. Accordingly, any further inquiry should stop, the claim is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Alex Bardin, 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.