Citation Nr: 21015662 Decision Date: 03/18/21 Archive Date: 03/18/21 DOCKET NO. 20-00 442 DATE: March 18, 2021 ORDER The application to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder is denied. The application to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for flat feet is denied. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An August 1962 rating decision earlier denied the Veteran’s claims of service connection for a right hip disorder and flat feet; the claimant did not appeal this decision; he did not submit new and material evidence within the one-year appeal period of this decision; and VA did not subsequently obtain and associate with the claims file VA treatment records generated within the one-year appeal period of the decision which treatment records are new and material evidence. 2. Evidence received since the August 1962 rating decision does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims of service connection for a right hip disorder and flat feet. 3. Bilateral hearing loss had its’ onset in service. 4. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Veteran did not have a left hip disorder at any time during the pendency of the appeal. 5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that back as well as left and right knee disorders were not present in service or until many years thereafter, are not related to service or to an incident of service origin, and were not caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The August 1962 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103. 2. New and material evidence has not been submitted sufficient to reopen claims of service connection for a right hip disorder and flat feet. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 3. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.385. 4. The criteria for service connection for back, a left hip, and left and right knee disorders have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from February 1960 to April 1962. In January 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans’ Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript has been associated with the claims file. The Applications to Reopen As to reopening a prior final decision, the law provides that if new and material evidence has been presented or secured with respect to matters which have been disallowed, these matters may be reopened and the former disposition reviewed. 38 U.S.C. § 5108. New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that in determining whether the evidence is new and material, the credibility of the newly presented evidence is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). The Board is required to consider all the evidence received since the first denial of the claim in light of the totality of the record. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 251 (1999). In this regard, the Court in Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010) held that the language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) created a low threshold and viewed the phrase “raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim” as “enabling rather than precluding reopening.” Further, in determining whether this low threshold is met, VA should not limit its consideration to whether the newly submitted evidence relates specifically to the reason why the claim was last denied, but instead should ask whether the evidence could reasonably substantiate the claim were the claim to be reopened, either by triggering VA’s duty to assist or through consideration of an alternative theory of entitlement. Id. at 118. The Court in Turner v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 207 (2018), also held that for purposes of finality VA treatment records dated during the appeal period are consider in VA’s possession even if these records are not physically associated with the claims file until many years after the RO issued a rating decision if the RO had sufficient knowledge of the existence of the records within the one-year appeal period. The Court also held that these VA treatment records will thereafter only trigger VA’s duty under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) if they are new and material evidence. Thereafter, in Lang v. Wilkie, No. 2019-1992 (August 19, 2020), the Court removed the sufficient knowledge of the existence of the VA records requirement in Turner. In evaluating the evidence, the Board has been charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to do so. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000). In doing so, the Board is free to favor one medical opinion over another, provided it offers an adequate basis for doing so. Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429, 433 (1995). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA. VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record. Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). With the above criteria in mind, the record shows the August 1962 rating decision earlier denied the Veteran’s claims of service connection for a right hip disorder and flat feet. As to right hip disorder, the rating decision denied the claim because, in substance, the Veteran did not have a current disability. As to flat feet, the rating decision denied the claim because, in substance, the record did not show that the pre-existing disability was aggravated by the Veteran’s military service. The Veteran did not appeal the August 1962 rating decision. The Board also finds that new and material evidence was not received by the RO in the first year following the issuance of the decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). In addition, the Board finds that VA did not subsequently obtain and associate with the claims file VA treatment records generated within the one-year appeal period of the rating decision that are new and material evidence. See Turner, super; Lang, super. Accordingly, the Board finds that the August 1962 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.302, 20.1103. Since this final August 1962 rating decisions, the RO, the Veteran, and/or his representative filed with the VA additional post-service treatment records, the Veteran and his representative filed with the RO additional written statements in support of the claims, the Veteran filed with the RO a medical article related to flat feet, and the Veteran and his wife testified at a personal hearing before the undersigned. Right Hip Disorder As to the right hip disorder and the additional medical records added to the record since the final August 1962 rating decision, while they document the Veteran’s periodic reports of right hip pain, they continue to be negative for a diagnosis of a right hip disorder as well as negative for the claimed disorder resulting in functional impairment that affects earning capacity. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, No. 18-3721, 2020 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 1523 (Aug. 11, 2020). Therefore, the Board finds that this medical evidence is neither new nor material evidence as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) because it is duplicative. As to the Veteran and his representative’s written statements in support of the claim and the personal hearing testimony from the Veteran and his wife, the Board notes that they state, in substance, that the appellant is entitled to service connection for a right hip disorder because the appellant has a disability due to service and/or his flat feet. However, these assertions were, in substance, before VA at the time of the earlier final rating decision. They are simply repeating the prior claims. Moreover, in August 1962 as well as today lay persons like the Veteran and his wife are not competent to diagnose a right hip disorder because it takes special medical training that they do not have. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Therefore, the Board finds that these statements and personal hearing testimony are neither new nor material evidence as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) because they are duplicative. Simply stated, the Veteran, his wife, and his representative have repeated the appellant’s earlier claims without providing new and material evidence. Accordingly, the Board finds that additional evidence added to the claims file since the final August 1962 rating decision is, in substance, duplicative of evidence found in the record at the time of that. Accordingly, this claim to reopen for a right hip disorder is denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Flat Feet As to the Veteran’s claim of service connection for flat feet and the additional medical records, the Board finds that they continue to document the Veteran’s post-service complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for this disorder. However, they continue to be negative for evidence showing that the Veteran’s pre-existing disorder was aggravated beyond its’ natural progression by his military service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1111, 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b); Jensen v. Brown, 19 F.3d 1413, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Therefore, the Board finds that this medical evidence is neither new nor material evidence as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) because it is duplicative. As to the medical article related to flat feet, the Board finds that the generic information found in this article is too general and inclusive to provide any pertinent evidence as to whether this Veteran’s pre-existing flat feet were aggravated by his military service. See, e.g., Sacks v. West, 11 Vet. App. 314, 317 (1998) (a medical article that contained a generic statement regarding a possible link between a service-incurred mouth blister and a present pemphigus vulgaris condition did not satisfy the nexus element). Therefore, the Board finds that the medical article is neither new nor material evidence as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). As to the Veteran and his representative’s written statements in support of the claim and the personal hearing testimony from the Veteran and his wife, the Board notes that they state, in substance, that the appellant is entitled to service connection for flat feet because it pre-existed his military service and was aggravated by that service. However, these assertions were, in substance, before VA at the time of the earlier final rating decision. They are simply repeating the prior claims. Moreover, in August 1962 as well as today lay persons like the Veteran and his wife are not competent to diagnose aggravation because it takes special medical training that they do not have. See Davidson, supra. Therefore, the Board finds that these statements and personal hearing testimony are neither new nor material evidence as defined by 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) because they are duplicative. Simply stated, the Veteran, his wife, and his representative have repeated the appellant’s earlier claims without providing new and material evidence. Accordingly, the Board finds that additional evidence added to the claims file since the August 1962 rating decision is, in substance, duplicative of evidence found in the record at the time of the prior final decision. Accordingly, the claim to reopen for flat feet is also denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). The Service Connection Claims Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required for service connection if the disability is one that is listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In addition, service connection may also be granted on the basis of a post-service initial diagnosis of a disease, where the physician relates the current condition to the period of service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In addition, service connection may also be granted on the basis of a post-service initial diagnosis of a disease, where the physician relates the current condition to the period of service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Other specifically enumerated disorders, including arthritis and sensor neural hearing loss, will be presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifested to a compensable degree within the first year following separation from active duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. In this regard, in order to establish service connection for the claimed disorders, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Service connection for impaired hearing is subject to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385, which provides that impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. The requirements for service connection for hearing loss as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 need not be shown by the results of audiometric testing during a claimant’s period of active military service in order for service connection to be granted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 does not prevent a claimant from establishing service connection on the basis of post-service evidence of hearing loss related to service when there were no audiometric scores reported at separation from service. Ledford v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 87, 89 (1992). The regulation does not necessarily preclude service connection for hearing loss that first met the regulation’s requirements after service. Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 159 (1993). Thus, a claimant who seeks to establish service connection for a current hearing disability must show, as is required in a claim for service connection for any disability, that a current disability is the result of an injury or disease incurred in service, the determination of which depends on a review of all the evidence of record including that pertinent to service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 and 3.304; Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 159-60. The Court in Hensley also held that “audiometric testing measures threshold hearing levels (in decibels (dB)) over a range of frequencies (in Hertz (Hz)); the threshold for normal hearing is from 0 to 20 dB, and higher threshold levels indicate some degree of hearing loss.” Hensley, 5 Vet. App. at 157. The requirement of a current disability is “satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim.” See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). In evaluating the evidence, the Board has been charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to do so. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000). In doing so, the Board is free to favor one medical opinion over another, provided it offers an adequate basis for doing so. Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429, 433 (1995). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA. VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record. Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Bilateral hearing loss The Veteran claims, in substance, that his current bilateral hearing loss is due to his military service. Specifically, the Veteran claims that it, like his already service-connected tinnitus, is due to his exposure to small arms and artillery fire while on active duty. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss as defined by VA. See, e.g., Kaiser audiological examination dated in February 2009; VA examination dated in December 2018. Next, the Veteran’s DD 214’s and service personnel records show that he earned the Marksman (Rifle) badge. Additionally, the Board finds the Veteran both competently and credibly reported being exposed to small arms fire in order to qualify with a rifle while in basic training as well as being exposed to artillery fire while in training. See Davidson, supra. The Board also notes that the February 1962 in-service audiological examination documented the fact that the Veteran has elevated auditory thresholds. Additionally, based on substantially the same evidence, the regional office (RO) granted the Veteran service connection for tinnitus in the January 2019 rating decision. Given this record and granting the Veteran the benefit of any doubt in this matter, the Board concludes that he had an injury (i.e., acoustic trauma) while on active duty. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert, supra. Further, given the nature of the Veteran’s service it is reasonable for the Board to find that he had problems hearing during and since being exposed to small arms fire while on active duty. See Davidson, supra; Owens, supra. However, the December 2018 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s hearing loss was not due to his military service. In this regard, because symptoms of hearing loss in and since service are observable by a lay person, because the examiner did not appear to fully consider the Veteran’s competent and credible lay claims regarding in-service acoustic trauma due to his exposed to small arms fire while in basic training as well as consider the elevated thresholds on the February 1962 audiological examination and the fact that VA granted the appellant service connection for tinnitus because of the same acoustic trauma, the Board finds that the Veteran’s claim of having observable symptoms of hearing loss in and since service is just as probative as the VA examiner’s opinion. See Davidson, supra; Owens, supra. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence, both positive and negative, as to whether the Veteran had problems with bilateral hearing loss since service is at least in equipoise. Under such circumstances and granting the Veteran the benefit of any doubt in this matter, the Board concludes that he did. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert, supra. Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for bilateral hearing loss is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Left hip disorder The Veteran claims, in substance, that he has a left disorder due to his military service and/or the gait disturbance caused by his flat feet. Initially, the Board finds that the Veteran is both competent and credible to report on the observable symptoms of his claimed disorder. See Davidson, supra. However, the service treatment records, including the February 1962 separation examination, are negative for an injury, complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for a left hip disorder despite documenting treatment for right hip bursitis and strain in December 1960. Additionally, the Board finds it significant that when examined in February 1962, while the Veteran reported a history of swollen or painful joints, he denied having a history of arthritis or lameness and the examiner opined that his lower extremities were normal; this medical opinion is not contradicted by any other medical evidence of record. See Colvin, supra. Post-service, and more important for this case, while the Veteran’s treatment records document his occasional complaints and treatment for left hip pain, they are negative for his being diagnosed with a left hip disorder. In this regard, the record shows that the RO did not provide the Veteran with a VA examination as to his claim of service connection for a left hip disorder. However, given the above record which is negative for the claimed disorder while on active duty and for over the next 59 years since service, the Board finds that VA had no obligation to obtain a medical opinion as to this claim. See Paralyzed Veterans of America, et. al., v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (holding that the criteria for obtaining an etiology opinion have not been met when the evidence of record does not establish that the veteran suffered an event, injury, or disease in service because no reasonable possibility exists that providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion would substantiate the claim); Duenas v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 512, 519 (2004) (VA is not obligated to provide an examination for a medical nexus opinion where, as here, the supporting evidence of record consists only of a lay statement). Simply stated, the post-service treatment records do not indicate a disability. Furthermore, while the Veteran and his wife are competent to report on the symptoms they observe, the Board finds that they are not competent to diagnose a left hip disorder because diagnosing it requires special medical training that they do not have and therefore they cannot provide the missing diagnosis. See Davidson, supra. Lastly, the Board in reaching the above conclusion has not overlooked the Court’s holding in Saunders, supra, and Martinez-Bodon, supra. However, the Board finds that the facts of this appeal are distinguishable from those cases because the record is negative for the claimed disorder resulting in functional impairment that affects earning capacity. See Owens, supra. Accordingly, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of a left hip disorder at any time during the pendency of the appeal and this claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 1131, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Back as well as left and right knee disorders The Veteran claims, in substance, that his back as well as his left and right knee disorders are due to his military service and/or the gait disturbance caused by his flat feet. As to current disabilities, the post-service record now shows the Veteran being diagnosed with back degenerative joint disease and strain as well as left and right knee arthritis. See, e.g., VA examination dated in December 2018; VA treatment records dated in August 2019, and November 2019; VA knee x-ray dated in August 2019. However, the service treatment records, including the February 1962 separation examination, are negative for an injury, complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for any back as well as his any left and right knee disorders. Additionally, the Board finds it significant that when examined in February 1962, while the Veteran reported a history of swollen or painful joints, he denied having a history of arthritis, lameness, trick or locked knee and the examiner opined that his lower extremities and spine examinations were normal; these medical opinions are not contradicted by any other medical evidence of record. See Colvin, supra. The detailed records in service provide particularly negative evidence against the claims, clearly indicating treatment for problems other than the issues before the Board. See Owens, supra. The records are highly detailed. Accordingly, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran did not develop back as well as his left and right knee disorders due to a disease or injury while on active duty despite the documented right hip bursitis and strain, with negative X-rays, seen in December 1960. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Colvin, supra; Hensley, supra. The record also does not show the Veteran being diagnosed with back as well as left and right knee arthritis in the first post-service year. Therefore, the Board finds that the regulations regarding presumptive service connection do not help the Veteran establish service connection for any of his claims. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). Similarly, the record does not show that the Veteran had a continued problem with back as well as left and right knee disorders in and since service. In fact, as reported above, when examined in February 1962 the Veteran denied having a history arthritis, lameness, trick or locked knee and the examiner opined that his lower extremities and spine examinations were normal despite the December 1960 complaints and treatment for right hip bursitis and strain. In this regard, the Board finds the contemporaneous service treatment records, including the February 1962 examination, more probative than the post-service lay claims from the Veteran and his wife regarding having continued adverse symptomatology due to his back and knee disorders since service because medical professionals have greater medical training. See Owens, supra; Black v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 297, 284 (1997) (in evaluating the probative value of medical statements, the Board looks at factors such as the individual knowledge and skill in analyzing the medical data). Likewise, and perhaps more importantly, while the Veteran and his wife testified that his back as well as left and right knee disorders and/or the symptoms of these disorders had persisted since he separated from service in 1962, the post-service record does not document his continued complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for the disorders since his 1962 separation – instead they do not show any treatment for these disorders until, at the earliest, 56 years after service. See, e.g., VA examination dated in December 2018; VA treatment records dated in August 2019, and November 2019; VA knee x-ray dated in August 2019. The Board cannot ignore such evidence. The post-service medical treatment records provide significant evidence against these claims. At this point, the service medical records and the post-service medical evidence each provide evidence against these claims of high probative value. Therefore, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran did not have a continued problem with back as well as left and right knee disorders in and since service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Furthermore, the record is negative for a competent and credible opinion that shows that his current back as well as left and right knee disorders are due to the Veteran’s military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); also see Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992) (establishing service connection requires finding a relationship between a current disability and events in service or an injury or disease incurred therein). In fact, the December 2018 VA examiner opined that his back disability is not due to his military service and the Board finds this opinion is the most probative evidence of record because it was were provided after a review of the record on appeal, an examination of the Veteran, and supported by citation to evidence found in the record and at the examination. See Owens, supra. As to the claims of service connection left and right knee disorders, the Board notes that VA did not obtain etiology opinions. However, given the above record which is negative for the claimed disorders while on active duty and for 56 years after service, the Board finds that VA had no obligation to obtain a medical opinion as to these claims. See Paralyzed Veterans of America, et. al., supra; Duenas, supra. It is important for the Veteran to understand that at this point both the factual evidence and the medical evidence (treatment records and the best medical opinions) provides highly probative evidence against the claims that the Board cannot ignore. In addition, the Board finds that the Veteran and his wife are not competent to provide the missing nexus opinions because they do not have the required medical expertise to provide answers to these complex medical questions (i.e., what caused his current back as well as his left and right knee disorders). See Davidson, supra. In this regard, the Board finds that they simply does not have the medical qualifications to provide a nexus opinion given the negative service treatment records and the 56 year gap between active duty that ended in 1962 and the first complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for any of these disorders post-service. Therefore, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record also shows that the Veteran’s post-service back as well as left and right knee disorders are not due to his military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); also see Rabideau, supra. Similarly, as to the Veteran’s claim that his back as well as left and right knee disorders are secondary to his flat feet, the Board notes that the appellant is not service-connected for flat feet. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran does not meet the criteria for secondary service connection for back as well as left and right knee disorders. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; also see Allen, supra; Wallin, supra; Ward, supra. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claims of service connection for back as well as left and right knee disorders. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. (Continued on the next page)   In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has also considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the probative evidence is against the claims, the Board finds that this doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55-56. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N.T. Werner, 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.