Citation Nr: 21014361 Decision Date: 03/12/21 Archive Date: 03/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-22 538 DATE: March 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is denied. FINDING OF FACT A TBI and back disability are not etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service, and were not present to a compensable degree within one year of separation from his service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a back disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). 2. The criteria for service connection for a TBI have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty for training (ACDUTRA) in the United States Reserves from January 1980 to May 1980. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision issued by the VA Regional Office (RO). In connection with this appeal, the Veteran and his brother testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in March 2020. The Veteran has contended that his TBI and back disability are related to his active service. Specifically, he recalled that he was harassed and assaulted while stationed at 6th Kipling Reserve Federal Center in May 1984 or in 1985. He reportedly sustained a head and back injury after he was hit on the head numerous times with an M16 rifle. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a head or back disability during the Veteran’s ACDUTRA. Service personnel records did not reflect that the Veteran had any additional period of recognized service. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a head or back disability documented at the Veteran’s July 1985 Reserves entrance examination. A review of post-service medical records revealed that the Veteran reported additional head injuries. In April 2000, he reported that he was stabbed on the left side of his head. In July 2003, he recalled that he was hit in the head with a baseball bat in the 1990s. Yet, the first documented medical treatment for any of his claimed head injuries was not until April 2000. Additionally, he did not complain of back pain until 2015. The Board notes that the passage of time between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is a factor that tends to weigh against a claim for service connection. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Furthermore, there is no indication from the record that the claimed disabilities were present to a compensable degree within a year of his separation from active service. Therefore, presumptive service connection is not warranted in this case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). The Board acknowledges the Veteran and his brother’s hearing testimony, including witnessing the Veteran slurring his speech and experiencing headaches following the alleged in-service assault. While the Veteran and his brother are competent to report on facts or circumstances which they have personal knowledge, the Board finds that the statements are not dispositive of whether the Veteran’s assault occurred during a period of recognized service for VA purposes. In sum, there is no evidence that the Veteran complained of, received treatment for, or had a diagnosis of a head or back disability during his ACDUTRA. There is no evidence that any TBI or back disability manifested within one year following his separation from ACDUTRA, and there is no competent evidence of record otherwise linking the Veteran’s TBI and back disability to his ACDUTRA. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims and entitlement to service connection for a TBI and back disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ware, 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.