Citation Nr: 21023436 Decision Date: 04/20/21 Archive Date: 04/20/21 DOCKET NO. 20-28 005 DATE: April 20, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran was not diagnosed with TBI in service and has not had a diagnosis of TBI at any time during the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for traumatic brain injury have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran service on active duty from July 2000 to July 2008. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The matter was previously before the Board in December 2020, at which time it was remanded for additional development. That development having been completed; this claim is once again before the Board. The Veteran contends that an in-service injury resulted in TBI. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of traumatic brain injury and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The Veteran’s service treatment records contain no diagnosis of TBI. The Veteran was involved in an incident in October 2007 with his roommate that resulted in the Veteran being elbowed in the left eye. He sought treatment for a left eye injury; however, he was noted to be alert and oriented to time, place, and person; no diagnosis of TBI was made. In a November 2008 examination note for the establishment of care with the VA, the Veteran indicated that he had not experienced TBI during deployment. While the examination question was specifically related to deployment, the Veteran did not reference any other TBI he may have had. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for TBI in May 2018. The VA examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined that, while the Veteran sought treatment for the eye injury noted above, and that he experienced subjective symptoms of intermittent headaches and fogginess, he was not given a diagnosis of TBI, per his service treatment records. The examiner noted that there was no evidence of orbital fracture or bone abnormality after the October 2007 incident. Further, despite consistent treatment from September 2009 to the present for other conditions, VA treatment records do not contain any diagnosis of TBI. The examiner noted no complaints of symptoms of TBI, including impairment of memory, attention, concentration, or executive function. The Veteran exhibited normal judgment and appropriate social interaction, and was oriented to person, time, place, and situation. While the Veteran did report intermittent headaches and fogginess, the examiner noted those to be subjective symptoms that did not interfere with work; instrumental activities of daily living; or work, family, or other close relationships. (Continued on the next page)   The Veteran is competent to describe his observable symptoms, including headaches and fogginess. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994) (finding that the Veteran as a lay person is competent to report information of which he has personal knowledge, i.e., information that he can gather through his senses). However, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. As the preponderance of the evidence is against this claim the Board must deny the claim for service connection for TBI. See 38. U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board V. Geer, 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.