Citation Nr: 21022700 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-08 024 DATE: April 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for prostatitis is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In-service prostatitis was acute and resolved. 2. A medically chronic prostatitis disability is not currently manifest and did not manifest at any point during the appeal period. CONCLUSION OF LAW Prostatitis was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2020).   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1984 to January 2014. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision. The Board remanded the case for further development in September 2018 and November 2019. The case has since been returned to the Board for further appellate review. Service connection for prostatitis 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 disability on appeal is the result of combat with the enemy. Therefore, the combat provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (2012) are not for consideration. 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 (2020). In Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) stated that “a veteran need only demonstrate that there is an ‘approximate balance of positive and negative evidence’ in order to prevail.” To deny a claim on its merits, the preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. The Veteran contends that he has prostatitis that is related to service. Service treatment records show that the Veteran was treated in 2010 for prostatitis. Following service, he promptly filed a claim for service connection for prostatitis. The postservice evidence of record establishes that the Veteran does not currently have a disability manifested by chronic prostatitis. In this regard, the Veteran was provided a VA examination in October 2020 to determine the etiology of any claimed prostatitis. After examination of the Veteran and consideration of the Veteran’s medical history to include the Veteran’s report of increased urinary frequency and continuity of prostate symptoms since service, the VA examiner declined to document a finding of prostatitis. In finding such, the VA examiner reported that while the Veteran had treatment for prostatitis in 2010, such treatment was acute and resolved. Moreover, the Veteran did not evidence any current prostate symptoms. Indeed, examination of the prostate and testicles was normal and the Veteran denied having a voiding dysfunction. Although the Veteran reported intermittent sharp pain in his testicles, the pain happened only about once monthly and lasted a brief time. The examiner reported that this finding was not reflective of a chronic prostatitis disability. As such, the Veteran did not evidence a chronic prostatitis disability. The Board also notes that although the VA examiner noted in the October 2020 examination report that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has prostatitis that is related to service, the examiner clarified in a November 2020 addendum report that the report should have noted that it is less likely than not that the prostatitis disability is related to service. In this case, the Board finds that the most probative evidence weighs against a finding that the criteria have been met for a current chronic prostatitis disability. In this regard, the Board finds it highly probative that the October 2020 VA examination report indicates normal findings of the prostate and testicles and that the examination was thorough. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements that he has prostatitis and symptoms associated therewith. The Veteran is competent to provide evidence of that which he experiences, including his symptomatology and medical history. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). In addition, lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when: (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition; (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis; or, (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 433, n.4 (2011). However, competence must be distinguished from probative weight. Although the Veteran is competent to relate what he experiences through the senses, the lay evidence is lacking in detail to support the conclusion that there is chronic prostatitis; a disability. The Veteran’s lay assertions are therefore afforded less probative weight, and less credibility than the October 2020 VA examination report. In this instance, the Board concludes that the most probative evidence establishes that the Veteran does not have prostatitis. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability benefits. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, in the absence of current disability, there can be no valid claim. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In this case, there is no disability that resulted from a disease or injury. We emphasize that under the provisions of 1110 and 1131, there must be disability and such disability must be due to disease or injury. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s in-service prostate treatment and finding of prostatitis. However, the objective evidence indicates that such finding was acute and resolved. Moreover, the normal findings postservice establishes that the Veteran does not currently have residuals of the disability (impairment). Under the circumstances, the Veteran has not met the regulatory requirements to establish service connection for prostatitis under any theory of entitlement and service connection must be denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. Here, however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Arif Syed, 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.