Citation Nr: 21023604 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-58 801 DATE: April 21, 2021 ORDER Service connection for polyarthritis is denied.   FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has not had polyarthritis at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for polyarthritis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1990 to May 1991, to include service in Southwest Asia from February 1, 1991 to May 31, 1991. In addition, he had service in the Reserves and Texas Army National Guard, to include a period of active duty training (ACDUTRA) from May 1963 to December 1963. This case comes to the Board from a June 2013 rating decision. In October 2018, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing. In March 2019, the Board reopened and remanded the claim of service connection for polyarthritis. In addition, service connection claims for back, neck, and right and left knee disorders were remanded for issuance of a statement of the case, unless the benefits sought were granted in full. While on remand, by a November 2020 rating decision, service connection was granted for back, neck, and right and left knee disorders. These awards represent a full grant of the benefits sought with respect to those issues. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). Service connection for polyarthritis. Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. A veteran seeking compensation under these provisions must establish three elements: “(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.” Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Active service includes periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) when service connection may be granted for disabilities resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated while performing ACDUTRA. 38 U.S.C. § 101(22), (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a), (c). Active service also includes periods of inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) when service connection may be granted for disabilities resulting from an injury incurred in or aggravated while performing INACDUTRA. 38 U.S.C. § 101(23), (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a), (d). Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Analysis The Veteran asserts that he has polyarthritis of multiple joints, to include his knees, due to the rigors of service, including parachute jumps, and/or an anthrax vaccine, and exposure to environmental hazards, including oil fires, during service in Southwest Asia. At the October 2018 Board hearing, he stated that joint pain had its onset after his deployment to Southwest Asia, after he received a vaccination for anthrax. In addition, he indicated joint pain related to landings associated with multiple parachute jumps during service. Pursuant to the Board’s March 2019 remand, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in November 2020. The examiner reported no evidence of the Veteran ever having an inflammatory, infectious, or crystalizing condition that caused polyarthritis. The Veteran’s history of shearing forces, such as those caused by parachute jumps, was noted, and arthritis from wear and tear was reported to be degenerative and specific to weightbearing joints. The examiner specifically stated that although the Veteran had arthritis in multiple joints, it was not due to a systemic condition. As noted above, while on remand, the RO granted service connection for arthritis of the cervical spine and right and left knee, as well as for lumbar spine strain. In addition, there is no reference to polyarthritis in treatment records, to include September 2016 VA treatment records reflecting assessments of DJD of the cervical and lumbar spine, and left knee. Although the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, to include joint pain, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education/knowledge. 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, and particularly the November 2020 VA opinion. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of polyarthritis 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). In the absence of a current disability, service connection is not established under any theory of entitlement. The Board notes that functional impairment due to the Veteran’s joint pain in his neck, back, and right and left knee is contemplated in the ratings already assigned for those disorders. See Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1367-69. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim; the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable; and service connection for polyarthritis is therefore not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Taylor 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.