Citation Nr: 21023733 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 18-31 835 DATE: April 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s current neck disability is caused by his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a neck disability (diagnosed as cervical degenerative disc disease/spondylosis) have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 2009 to July 2013 and from March 2020 to September 2020, to include service to Southwest Asia. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a November 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office. The Veteran testified at a hearing with the undersigned in May 2020. Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran has a current neck disability. For example, his private physician, Dr. K.B., indicates the Veteran has cervical spondylosis. An October 2016 VA examination also shows a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease with cervical strain. Thus, the remaining question is whether the current neck disability is related to service. Service treatment records show no complaints, diagnosis, or treatment related to a neck disability. The March 2013 separation examination does not indicate if evaluation of the neck was performed. The Veteran received private chiropractic treatment related to the neck while still on his first period of active service. A neck disability is shown by medical evidence as early as June 2015, less than 2 years after the Veteran first separated from service. The Veteran presented for a VA examination in October 2016, at which time he was interviewed by the examiner who also reviewed the pertinent medical history and performed an examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s neck disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by specific exposure related events experienced in Southwest Asia. The examiner opined that these “conditions can occur without such exposure.” The examiner did not offer an opinion as to whether the neck disability was directly related to an injury during service. Regarding direct service connection, a positive nexus medical opinion was submitted on the Veteran’s behalf by Dr. K.B., who specializes in spine, musculoskeletal, and electrodiagnostic medicine. See June 2018 Private Opinion. Doctor K.B. notes the Veteran’s neck pain started after his multiple injuries in the military. Doctor K.B. addresses an assault on the Veteran after service; however, notes that the assault only “complicated” the Veteran’s neck disability. In support of his opinion, Dr. K.B. notes that the Veteran’s neck pain onset earlier than typically seen related to cervical spondylosis. This opinion is also consistent with the medical evidence on file. For example, Dr. S.I.’s statement confirms the Veteran was seeking chiropractic treatment for his neck in July 2012, which is during active duty and prior to the post-service assault. See December 2016 Private Treatment Letter. Furthermore, the CT spine scan conducted in June 2015 shows the Veteran had degenerative disc changes at discs C5-C6 and C6-C7, which would indicate a condition pre-existing the assault, as this CT scan was done in conjunction with the assault conducted on the Veteran. Therefore, the Board places greatest probative weight on the medical opinion rendered by Dr. K.B. who is a trained medical professional who offered his opinion based on appropriate diagnostic testing and reasonably drawn conclusions with supportive rationale. As the evidence weighs in favor of the claim, service connection is granted. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Jarman, 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.