Citation Nr: 21014350 Decision Date: 03/12/21 Archive Date: 03/11/21 DOCKET NO. 16-36 368 DATE: March 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT A chronic right ankle disorder was not shown in service and the preponderance of the evidence fails to establish that a current ankle disability is etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty from May 1979 to September 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision by the San Juan, The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). VA records show the Veteran failed, without indication of good cause, to report for a scheduled Board hearing in March 2020. As such, his hearing request is considered as having been withdrawn. Service Connection Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131. Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, the evidence must show: (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 or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The term “disability” for VA compensation purposes refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity rather than the underlying cause of the impairment and it is noted that pain alone may be a functional impairment. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 887 F.3d 1356, 1364-68 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In determining whether evidence submitted by a claimant is credible, VA may consider internal consistency, facial plausibility, and consistency with other evidence. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995). The Board has the authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in light of its own inherent characteristics and its relationship to other evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). It is the policy of VA to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent with the facts in each case, with all reasonable doubt to be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder. The Veteran contends that he has a right ankle disorder as a result of active service. His original service connection claim was received by VA in March 2015. In his July 2015 notice of disagreement, he reported that he incurred a sprained ankle injury in the line of duty and that he had continued to experience severe pain. Service treatment records are negative for complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of a specific right ankle disorder. A June 1979 treatment report noted the Veteran complained of swelling and pain after he fell on the heel of his foot while playing basketball. The examiner noted slight dislocation without identifying the joint affected. The foot (left or right) was not identified. In an August 1980 report of medical history, the Veteran noted having had a history of broken bones; bone, joint, or other deformity; and foot trouble. No additional specific comments as to these matters were recorded. His August 1980 separation examination revealed a normal clinical evaluation of the feet and lower extremities. VA treatment records dated in January 2015 noted the Veteran reported a two-month history of right external ankle pain. He denied any past trauma or accident. A February 2015 report noted X-ray studies of the right foot revealed the visualized bones, soft tissues, and articulations were normal. Based upon the evidence of record, the Board finds that a chronic right ankle disorder was not shown during active service and that the preponderance of the evidence also fails to establish that a current right ankle disability is otherwise etiologically related to service. The overall evidence is found to be persuasive that a chronic right ankle disorder was not incurred during or as a result of active service. There is no credible evidence indicating that a present right ankle disability may be reasonably attributed to any specific event, injury, or disease during active service. Therefore, a VA examination and medical opinion was not required in this case. See Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010). The Board finds it is significant that the Veteran’s August 1980 separation examination revealed a normal clinical evaluation of the feet and lower extremities and that upon VA treatment in January 2015 he reported only a two-month history of right external ankle pain with no past trauma or accident. Although a June 1979 in-service treatment report indicates slight dislocation to an unidentified joint associated with a fall on the heel of his foot, the August 1980 separation examination is persuasive that no chronic right ankle disorder existed at that time. The Veteran’s own statements in January 2015 and the normal X-ray findings at that time are similarly found to demonstrate the lack of a chronic right ankle disorder or symptoms of a chronic right ankle disability that had continued since 1980. The Veteran’s statements as to having sustained a right ankle injury in service of such severity that symptoms to some degree had continued since his discharge from are found to be not credible due to inconsistency with the other evidence of record. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms, but there is no indication that he is competent to etiologically link any such symptoms to a current diagnosis. He is not shown to possess the requisite medical training, expertise, or credentials needed to render a diagnosis or a competent opinion as to medical causation. Nothing in the record demonstrates that they received any special training or acquired any medical expertise in evaluating such disorders. See King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the lay evidence does not constitute competent medical evidence and lacks probative value. Consideration has also been given to the Veteran’s personal assertions that he has a right ankle disorder as a result of service. However, while lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), the specific issue in this case, chronicity of an in-service injury, falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The disability at issue is not a matter that is readily amenable to lay diagnosis or probative comment regarding etiology. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In conclusion, the Board finds service connection for a right ankle disorder is not warranted. When all the evidence is assembled VA is then responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the claimant prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim in which case the claim is denied. Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Douglas 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.