Citation Nr: 21022564 Decision Date: 04/16/21 Archive Date: 04/16/21 DOCKET NO. 17-31 155 DATE: April 16, 2021 ORDER Service connection for burn scars is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran has burn scars that are causally related to his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for burn scars have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran honorably served on active duty from July 1997 to July 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from January 2014 rating decision. This matter was previously remanded by the Board in February 2019 for further development. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with those remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998) (holding that a remand by the Board confers upon the Veteran, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with its remand instructions, and imposes upon VA a concomitant duty to insure compliance with the terms of the remand); see also D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008) (holding that only substantial rather than strict compliance with the Board’s remand directives is required under Stegall). Service connection for burn scars Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection requires: (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, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Factual Background & Analysis The Veteran contends that he has residual burn scars on his arms and legs from a heater unit explosion and subsequent tent fire during service in Grafenwoehr, Germany in 1999. See May 2016 correspondence. In a June 2017 substantive appeal the Veteran stated that he was treated for several days in a hospital due to burns on his arms and legs. A July 2017 Report of Consultation and Examination from a Dr. P.J.Y., Diagnostic Consultant, Chiropractor, states that the Veteran has painful scars on his arms and legs that are causally related to the aforementioned tent fire during military service. The clinician stated that this is a “permanent condition.” A July 2017 VA skin examination documented no burn scars on any part of the body. An October 2019 VA scars/disfigurement examination documents that the Veteran has no scars or disfigurement on his body. The examiner specifically stated that there were no findings of “burn scars” and that the Veteran was unable to identify any burn scars. The examiner opined that any claimed burn scars are less likely than not related to the Veteran’s service. The given rationale was that the Veteran’s STRs do not document any objective indications of burn scars and there were no scars found presently during the examination. The examiner also specifically addressed Dr. P.J.Y.’s positive nexus opinion noting that he is not qualified as a chiropractor to provide an etiology opinion as to burn scars. Moreover, the examiner opined the positive nexus opinion was likely based solely on the Veteran’s subjective reports and is, therefore, merely speculative. After a review of the evidence, the Board affords more probative weight to the October 2019 VA examiner’s findings. The examiner concluded that the Veteran does not have burn scars disability after an in-person examination of the Veteran. Moreover, the examination report reveals that the Veteran could not identify any burn scars to the examiner. Where the evidence does not support a finding of current disability upon which to predicate a grant of service connection, there can be no valid claim for that benefit. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). As such, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against a finding of a current disability and service connection must therefore be denied. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Kyle McKone 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.