Citation Nr: 21021163 Decision Date: 04/12/21 Archive Date: 04/12/21 DOCKET NO. 15-31 801 DATE: April 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. A right wrist disability was not manifest in service and is not otherwise attributable to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW A right wrist disability was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from March 1961 to March 1965. He died in December 2017. The Appellant claims as the surviving spouse and has been substituted as the claimant in this matter to complete the processing of the deceased Veteran’s claims pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5121A. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from a February 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2020, the Board remanded this case for further development. The July 2020 remand required that the appellant should have an opportunity to submit additional evidence and the VA search for any outstanding records of VA care. Accordingly, the Boards remand instructions have been substantially complied with. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right wrist disability The Veteran contended that he has a right wrist disability that is due to his service. More specifically, he had to dive for safety and sprained the wrist. Pertinent Legal Criteria Veterans are entitled to compensation from VA if they develop a disability “resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty.” 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (wartime service), 1131 (peacetime service). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran 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”-the so-called “nexus” requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed.Cir. 2004). The Board notes that the Veteran has not claimed that his disabilities on appeal are the result of combat with the enemy. Therefore, the combat provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1154 are not for consideration. Service connection is warranted for disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. When service connection is thus established for a secondary condition, the secondary condition shall be considered a part of the original condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Any increase in severity of a non-service-connected disease or injury that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury, and not due to the natural progress of the nonservice connected disease or injury will be service connected. However, VA will not concede that a non-service-connected disease or injury was aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury unless the baseline level of severity of the nonservice-connected disease or injury is established by medical evidence created before the onset of aggravation and the receipt of medical evidence establishing the current level of severity of the nonservice-connected disease or injury. The rating activity will determine the baseline and current levels of severity under the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (38 C.F.R. Part 4) and determine the extent of aggravation by deducting the baseline level of severity, as well as any increase in severity due to the natural progress of the disease, from the current level. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b). For secondary service connection to be granted, generally there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disease or injury; and (3) nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). After the evidence is assembled, it is the Board’s responsibility to evaluate the entire record. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (2012). When there is an approximate balance of evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each issue shall be given to the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3 (2019). Service Connection The Board notes that Veteran’s service treatment records are silent of any complaints or injuries relating to Veteran’s right wrist. Both Veteran’s March 1961 enlistment examination and February 1965 discharge examination reported no issues or complaints regarding the Veteran’s right wrist. The discharge examination disclosed that the upper extremities were normal. The Board notes that the earliest available medical record on Veteran’s extremities is an October 2009 outpatient note. Veteran’s musculoskeletal was noted as normal and that there were no skeletal tenderness or joint deformities. The note only indicated issues on Veteran’s lower extremities related to his leg. On October 2011 during another visit, Veteran’s musculoskeletal system was reviewed. The visit reported that Veteran’s musculature was normal, there were no joint deformities or abnormalities and there was all normal range of motion for all four extremities. The results of the previous visit were once again repeated in a later January 2013 visit. During Veteran’s January 2013 visit it was noted that there was numbness in the extremities. The note did not indicate which extremity had numbness, but stated that all four extremities had a normal range of motion for Veterans’ age. In an April 2013 outpatient visit, it was noted again that the Veteran was positive for numbness in the extremities. Which extremity was experiencing the numbness was not noted, but during the physical examination notes were taken about the lower extremities. It was again noted that Veteran did not have any bone or joint symptoms, there were no joint deformities or abnormalities and there was a normal range of motion for all four extremities. During a January 2014 visit, the physical examination noted that Veteran’s musculoskeletal system was normal and his extremities were normal. There was no mention of a right wrist disability in the set of problems Veteran was experiencing at that moment. On the Veteran’s May 2014 application for compensation, Veteran reported that he had right wrist calcification that began in 1963. The Veteran provided a July 2014 Statement in Support of Claim which stated that he had to dive for safety. The Veteran stated that he had sprained his right wrist which now is restricted in movement and calcified. The Board observes that lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed described by a lay person (e.g. any evidence not requiring that the proponent has specialized education, training, or experience). 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). As such, the appellant can competently testify about symptoms the Veteran experienced in service. However, competency must be distinguished from weight and credibility. The former is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while the latter is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). In the present case, the Board finds that the appellant's claim of a right wrist disability is outweighed by the objective evidence of record in light of the lack of any symptoms, complaints or treatments of during and post-service records which indicate normal findings with regard to this disability. Therefore, to the extent that the appellant contends that the Veteran’s right wrist disability manifested during service, this lay evidence is at odds with the remainder of the record, which reflects silent findings during service, a normal examination of the upper extremities at separation and the no treatment of the Veteran’s right wrist post-service denial. Rather, as late as 2011, an examination disclosed that there was a normal range of motion of all four extremities. We find the service records and the initial post-service records to be far mor probative and credible than the recent lay evidence. As such, the Veteran’s statements are lacking probative value. See Cartright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) [VA cannot ignore a veteran's testimony simply because the veteran is an interested party; personal interest may, however, affect the credibility of the evidence]. In short, there is no credible evidence of an in-service manifestation of right wrist disability. Furthermore, there is no reliable evidence linking a remote disability to service, other than the Veteran’s own lay theory. To the extent that the appellant asserts that the Veteran’s right wrist disability is related to service, the Board finds that the Veteran’s statements regarding this disability being incurred in service are not credible given the objective evidence of record to include the service treatment records and the post-service medical records. Conclusion The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant’s claim of entitlement to service connection for right wrist disability. The benefits sought on appeal are accordingly denied. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Konieczny, Adam 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.