Citation Nr: 21014231 Decision Date: 03/11/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 14-27 652 DATE: March 11, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for joint pain as due to undiagnosed illness is denied. Entitlement to service connection for muscle pain as due to undiagnosed illness is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served in the Southwest Asia Theater of Operations during the Persian Gulf War. 2. The Veteran does not have objective indications of a chronic disability manifested by joint or muscle pain symptoms resulting from an undiagnosed illness or from a medically unexplained multi-symptom illness. 3. There is no contention or indication of record that the Veteran’s claimed joint or muscle pain was directly related to his military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A chronic disability manifested by joint pain was not incurred in or aggravated by the Veteran’s military service, nor presumed to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.317. 2. A chronic disability manifested by muscle pain was not incurred in or aggravated by the Veteran’s military service, nor presumed to have been incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.317. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from May 1987 to December 1991, including verified service in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War. He had additional service in the South Carolina Army National Guard. This appeal arises from an August 2013 rating decision, denying service connection for joint and muscle pain as due to undiagnosed illness. In August 2016, the Board remanded the case to the AOJ for additional development and consideration. The Board’s remand included a directive for the AOJ to issue a Statement of the Case (SOC), in compliance with Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999) for the issues of service connection for a back disorder and an increased rating claim in excess of 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In September 2016, the AOJ mailed to the Veteran a SOC addressing the claims. The Veteran did not submit a substantive appeal (VA Form 9) within 60 days of the September 2016 SOC or within one year of the notification of the respective rating decisions in June 1997 (back disorder) and October 2013 (PTSD). In fact, there is no indication that the Veteran has filed any substantive appeal, VA Form 9, with regard to the September 2016 SOC. Thus, matters have not been properly perfected for appellate review and are not within the Board’s jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 (d)(3). The Board also notes that the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), on the issues of joint pain/muscle pain in June and July 2019 on VA Form 10182. However, these were untimely AMA appeals, given that the last decision on these issues was in a February 2018 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). Moreover, these VA Form 10182s did not indicate any RAMP appeal or opt-in from an SOC/SSOC. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400 (a). Thus, the joint and muscle pain issues remain on legacy appeal status before the Board. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing at the RO (Travel Board) in August 2015, before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript is of record. In November 2020, the Veteran was notified that the VLJ who conducted the August 2015 hearing was no longer employed with the Board. The Veteran was provided the opportunity to testify at another hearing, but he declined in a November 2020 response. As the Veteran did not seek another hearing, the Board addresses the remaining claims on appeal for joint pain and muscle pain as due to undiagnosed illness. Service Connection 1. Service connection for joint pain as due to undiagnosed illness 2. Service connection for muscle pain as due to undiagnosed illness The Veteran contends he has had a history of muscle and joint pain since shortly after service, in approximately 1993, which he attributes to Gulf War syndrome or illness. See Board hearing transcript, at 2-3. He asserts he began to experience symptoms of widespread muscle pain, morning stiffness and joint pain, and that such symptoms have not stopped. See April 2015 Veteran’s statement. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a).  Service connection may 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).  As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where the evidence shows a “chronic disease” in service or “continuity of symptoms” after service, the disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b). The option of establishing service connection through a demonstration of continuity of symptomatology rather than through a finding of nexus is specifically limited to the chronic disabilities listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection may also be granted for chronic disabilities, including arthritis, if such is shown to have been manifested to a compensable degree within one year after the Veteran was separated from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (a). Here, the Veteran does not meet the criteria for presumptive service connection. The record does not show any arthritis manifested to a compensable degree (10 percent) during service or within a year following separation. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (a). Service connection may also be warranted for a Persian Gulf veteran who exhibits objective indications of a qualifying chronic disability that became manifest during active military, naval or air service in the Southwest Asia Theater of Operations during the Persian Gulf War, or that became manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more not later than December 31, 2021. See 38 U.S.C. § 1117; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.317. 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 (a)(1). Although the Veteran served in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War, nonetheless, the probative evidence of record weighs against the contention that his claimed joint pain and muscle pain are due to an undiagnosed illness or are part of a medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illness (MUCMI). See 38 U.S.C. § 1117; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.317. Rather, the July 2013 VA Gulf War examination specifically found no undiagnosed illness or diagnosed medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illness. Rather, the examiner reasoned that, “The Veteran has several diseases/conditions with a clear and specific etiology and diagnosis as detailed in the [Disability Benefits Questionnaires] to include tension headaches, lumbar spondylosis, left lateral epicondylitis, and left patellofemoral pain syndrome which I feel are unrelated to specific exposure events experienced by the [V]eteran during service in SW Asia. These are typically related to overuse and not associated with specific environmental exposures of which I am aware. The veteran does describe “widespread muscle pain”, other sites of joint pain, and chest tightness for which I find no definite objective evidence on today’s examination.” Thus, the Board notes that the probative evidence does not support the possibility of service connection under § 3.317. Further, there appears to be no indication of record that the Veteran’s claimed muscle and joint pain are directly related to any disease or injury incurred in service. Moreover, the service records and post service records do not suggest such. To the extent that the Veteran maintains that his muscle and joint pain are attributable to service, to include any event or environs of service, the Board finds that he is not competent to create a casual nexus. The Veteran as a lay person does not have the required medical expertise to render an opinion for this medically complex matter. Thus, his statements are not competent and are of no probative value in this regard. The Board concludes the evidence does not support the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Biswajit Chatterjee, 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.