Citation Nr: 21022905 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-24 726A DATE: April 19, 2021 ORDER Service connection for diabetes mellitus, on the basis of substitution, is denied. Service connection for cataracts with senile nuclear sclerosis and diabetic macular edema (bilateral eye condition), on the basis of substitution, is denied. Service connection for a kidney condition, on the basis of substitution, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence is insufficient to find that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus was incurred in or otherwise related to his active military service. 2. The evidence is insufficient to find that the Veteran’s bilateral eye condition was incurred in or otherwise related to his active military service. 3. The evidence is insufficient to find that the Veteran’s kidney condition was incurred in or otherwise related to his active military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus, on the basis of substitution, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1131,1137, 5121A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). 2. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye condition, on the basis of substitution, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5121A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310(a). 3. The criteria for service connection for a kidney condition, on the basis of substitution, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5121A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army National Guard from May 1976 to July 1976. He died in February 2019. The appellant is a surviving non-dependent adult child of the Veteran. In June 2020, the RO sent a letter to the appellant, in which the RO granted her request to be substituted as claimant in place of the Veteran. See 38 U.S. C. § 5121A. The matter is on appeal before the Board from April and January 2016 rating decisions. The Board previously remanded the issues in December 2018 for further development. The Board notes that in relation to the development indicated in the Board remand, a letter was sent to the appellant in June 2020 requesting either the submission of private treatment records that may be pertinent to the claim or the completion and return of VA Form 21-4142a, General Release for Medical Provider Information, so that VA may be able to obtain the treatment records from the private medical provider. In addition, a Section 5103 Notice Response was also enclosed. To date, the appellant has not responded to the letter, nor has she submitted any treatment records. As such, the Board finds that no further development is currently required, and that adjudication of the issues is appropriate at this time. Service Connection Service connection for VA compensation purposes will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or personal injury incurred in the line of duty or for aggravation of a pre-existing injury in the active military, naval or air service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). “Service connection” basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The term “active military, naval or air service” is further defined as (1) active duty or a period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and (2) any period of inactive duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(24). Service connection for disability arising from inactive duty training is permitted only for injuries, not diseases, incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, (with the exceptions for acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident, not pertinent here). See Brooks v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 484, 485 (1993). As such, for purposes of VA benefits, the key periods are those specific, discrete periods of active duty; any particular dates of active duty training during which the Veteran incurred or aggravated a disease or injury in line of duty; or a particular date of inactive duty training during which the Veteran incurred or aggravated a disease in line of duty. Thus, simply being affiliated with a National Guard unit would not itself establish a basis for entitlement to VA benefits for any disability arising over the course of that same period. Rather, as indicated, to establish VA service connection benefits, the claimed disability must have begun or been aggravated in line of duty during a specific period of active duty; during a specific period of active duty for training; or have resulted from an injury in line of duty during a period of inactive duty for training. In this case, the Veteran’s only active service was from May to July 1976. Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to, or the result of, a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Secondary service connection may also be established for a disability which is aggravated by a service-connected disability. In order to prevail on the issue of secondary service connection, the record must show (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509 (1998). Diabetes Mellitus, Bilateral Eye Condition, and Kidney Condition The Veteran and the appellant have asserted that service connection is warranted for diabetes mellitus, a bilateral eye condition, and a kidney condition. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) does not reflect any diagnoses for diabetes mellitus, a bilateral eye condition, or a kidney condition. They also fail to show any in-service complaints or treatments that may be related to diabetes mellitus, a bilateral eye condition, or a kidney condition. A review of the Veteran’s VA treatment records reflects diagnoses for diabetes mellitus, diabetic macular edema, senile nuclear sclerosis, cataracts, and chronic kidney disease. The earliest recorded diagnosis for diabetes mellitus was in April 2009. This is almost 33 years after the Veteran’s separation from active military service. The earliest recorded diagnoses for the Veteran’s bilateral eye conditions are from May 2012 for diabetic macular edema, December 2013 for senile nuclear sclerosis, and March 2014 for cataracts. This is almost 36 years after his separation from active military service. The earliest recorded diagnosis for a kidney condition is from June 2011. There is a notation from May 2009 that labs indicated kidney failure. The indication of kidney failure from the Veteran’s labs is almost 33 years after his separation from active military service, and the actual diagnosis is almost 35 years after his separation. As such, continuity of symptomatology is not shown in relation to any of the Veteran’s contended conditions. In addition, neither the Veteran, nor the appellant, provided any statements or arguments indicating a continuity of symptomatology between the Veteran’s active military service and the first recorded diagnoses. The Veteran’s treatment records indicate that his kidney condition and his bilateral eye condition, or at least some of the diagnoses, may have been related to his diabetes mellitus. As noted above, the Veteran was diagnosed with chronic kidney disease in June 2011, one of the notations from June 2011, was a diagnosis of diabetes with renal manifestations. In addition to the diagnosis for diabetic macular edema in May 2012, there was a prior diagnosis of diabetes and moderate background retinopathy in May 2009. These diagnoses suggest that the Veteran’s kidney condition and his bilateral eye condition were, at least in part, related to his diabetes mellitus. However, as there is no indication anywhere in the record that the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus was related to or otherwise caused by his active military service, service connection on a secondary basis for either a kidney condition or a bilateral eye condition is not warranted. Consideration is given to both the Veteran’s and appellant’s contentions, that the claimed conditions of diabetes mellitus, bilateral eye condition, and a kidney condition were incurred in or caused by the Veteran’s military service. While lay persons are competent to provide opinions pertaining to certain medical issues, the etiology of diabetes mellitus, a bilateral eye condition, and a kidney condition, as is specific to this case, is outside the realm of common knowledge for someone, such as the Veteran or the appellant, who do not possess medical training, specialized expertise, or experience. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492. F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, both the Veteran’s and the appellant’s assertions lack probative value pertaining to the etiology of the Veteran’s diabetes mellitus, bilateral eye condition, and kidney condition. There has simply been no indication how or why they were considered to be service related. Accordingly, service connection for diabetes mellitus, on the basis of substitution, is denied; service connection for a bilateral eye condition, on the basis of substitution is denied; and service connection for a kidney condition, on the basis of substitution is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Lutgens-Staley, Associate 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.