Citation Nr: 21023987 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-27 581 DATE: April 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a jaw disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a cavity is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a cardiac disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a hernia is denied. Entitlement to service connection for bladder stones is denied. Entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability, also claimed as shin splints, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for headaches is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, also claimed as shin splints, is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a jaw disability that is related to service. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran had any dental trauma or injury during active service. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a left foot disability that is related to service. 4. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a right foot disability that is related to service. 5. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a cardiac disability that is related to service. 6. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a hernia that is related to service. 7. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has bladder stones that are related to service. 8. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has athlete’s foot that is related to service. 9. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a left shoulder disability that is related to service. 10. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a back disability that is related to service. 11. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a left knee disability that is related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a jaw disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for Entitlement to service connection for a cavity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.381, 4.150. 3. The criteria for service connection for a left foot disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 4. The criteria for service connection for a right foot disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 5. The criteria for service connection for a cardiac disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 6. The criteria for service connection for a hernia are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 7. The criteria for service connection for bladder stones are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 8. The criteria for service connection for athlete’s foot are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 9. The criteria for service connection for a left shoulder disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 10. The criteria for service connection for a back disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 11. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service from June 1999 to September 2004 February 2011 to June 2011, June 2011 to March 2012, April 2012 to September 2012, and in April 2013. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. The hearing was scheduled for May 2019, but the Veteran failed to attend. As such, the Veteran’s hearing request is considered withdrawn. The Board notes that the AOJ requested the Veteran submit any relevant private treatment records or submit information with which VA can assist the Veteran in obtaining private treatment records. VA requested records for which the Veteran submitted a proper release. The duty to assist is not a one way street. If a Veteran desires help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Thus, the Board finds that VA has satisfied the duty to assist. No further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA’s duty to assist in development. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). Service Connection Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Evidence of continuity of symptomatology from the time of service until the present is required where the chronicity of a chronic condition manifested during service either has not been established or might reasonably be questioned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed.Cir.2013) (holding that only conditions listed as chronic diseases in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) may be considered for service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b)). Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). The Board has reviewed all the evidence in the record. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the appellant or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board’s analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate each claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to each claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA. VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record. 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a jaw disability. The Veteran contends that he has a current disability of the jaw that is causally related to his active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current jaw disability and the evidence does not indicate a jaw disability during service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of a jaw disability or injury. Specifically, in September 2012, the Veteran reported no jaw condition that may result in difficulty with proper fitting of protective equipment when firefighting. While the Veteran is competent to report jaw pain, the Board finds his assertion that he has a jaw disability that is causally related to service to be not credible. The Veteran specifically noted no jaw disability in September 2012. Additionally, the Veteran provided no details regarding any jaw injury or complaints during or after service. As such, the Board finds that the record contains no credible evidence of a disease, injury, or event in service, to which any current jaw disability could be related. Based on the evidence cited above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for a jaw disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a jaw disability, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a cavity. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for dental cavities. VA law and regulations provide compensation only for certain types of dental and oral conditions listed under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not considered disabling for VA disability compensation purposes; such conditions will be considered service connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment. 38 U.S.C. § 1712; 38 C.F.R. § 3.381; see generally Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302 (1993) (a claim of service connection for a dental disorder is also a claim for VA outpatient dental treatment). The matter of eligibility for VA dental treatment is not the subject of the Board’s review. Rather, the Board will address whether the Veteran is entitled to service connection for VA compensation purposes. In this case, there is no competent medical or dental evidence of any dental condition for which service connection for compensation purposes could be allowed. The records do not indicate that during service the Veteran incurred a dental injury and the Veteran does not contend otherwise. While service connection may be established for treatment purposes for dental caries and dental abscesses, the regulations listed above clearly prohibit service connection for purposes of compensation where the disability involves dental caries. As neither condition is recognized by the applicable regulations as a disability for which VA compensation may be granted, the Veteran’s claim is not warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.381. In addition, there was no evidence of any in-service dental trauma which resulted in residuals, additional loss of teeth, malunion or nonunion of the maxilla, or loss of body of the maxilla or mandible. The Board has considered the Veteran’s claim; however, the Board notes that the Veteran did not assert that he experienced in-service dental trauma or injury. As noted above, service treatment records do not support a finding of in-service trauma. This is further probative evidence that weighs against a finding of an in-service dental trauma. In sum, the preponderance of evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current dental disability eligible for service connection for VA compensation purposes. As such, there is no reasonable doubt to resolve, and the claim for service connection for a cavity is denied. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability. The Veteran contends that he has a current bilateral foot disability, claimed as foot pain, that is causally related to his active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current bilateral foot disability that is related to his active service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a foot disability. Specifically, in September 2012, the Veteran reported no history of extremity problems that may result in the inability to safely perform essential job tasks. The Veteran also noted no abnormalities of the extremities, full range of motion, and no arthralgias. He was described as fit, exercised regularly, and had no difficulties associated with workouts. While the Veteran is competent to report foot pain, the Board finds his assertion that he has a foot disability that is causally related to service to be not credible. The Veteran provided no details regarding any foot injury or complaints during or after service. The service treatment records support the finding that the Veteran did not have foot symptoms, injury, or diagnosis during service. As such, the Board finds that the record contains no credible evidence of a disease, injury, or event in service, to which any current foot disability could be related. Based on the evidence cited above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for a bilateral foot disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a bilateral foot disability, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability. Please see the analysis in Section 3, above. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a cardiac disability. The Veteran contends that he has a current cardiac disability that is causally related to his active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current cardiac disability that is related to his active service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a cardiac disability. Specifically, in May 2010, the Veteran’s EKG was normal. In December 2011, the Veteran noted no chest pain or discomfort. In September 2012, the Veteran reported no heart conditions that would limit his ability to safely exercise, run, climb stairs, walk distances, or stand for prolonged periods. He had no high blood pressure, chest pains, or heart attack. He was on no heart medications. The Veteran worked out and ran regularly. The Veteran was screened for cardiovascular disease showing a normal ECG. He was released without limitations. While the Veteran is competent to report chest pain, the Board finds his assertion that he has a cardiac disability that is causally related to service to be not credible. The Veteran provided no details regarding any cardiac complaints or symptoms during or after service. The service treatment records support the finding that the Veteran did not have cardiac symptoms, injury, or diagnosis during service. As such, the Board finds that the record contains no credible evidence of a disease, injury, or event in service, to which any current cardiac disability could be related. Based on the evidence cited above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for a cardiac disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a cardiac disability, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a hernia. The Veteran contends that he has a current hernia disability that is causally related to his active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current hernia that is related to his active service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a hernia. Specifically, in October 2011, the Veteran denied any chronic health conditions and was not on any medications. In September 2012, the Veteran had no gastrointestinal symptoms, to include no abdominal pain. While the Veteran is competent to report pain associated with a hernia, the Board finds his assertion that he has a hernia that is causally related to service to be not credible. The Veteran provided no details regarding any complaints of a hernia during or after service. The service treatment records support the finding that the Veteran did not have hernia symptoms or a diagnosis during service. As such, the Board finds that the record contains no credible evidence of a disease, injury, or event in service, to which any current hernia could be related. Based on the evidence cited above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for a hernia. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a hernia, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 7. Entitlement to service connection for bladder stones. The Veteran contends that he has bladder stones that are causally related to his active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a bladder stones that are related to his active service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of bladder stones. Specifically, in October 2011, the Veteran denied any chronic health conditions and was not on any medications. In September 2012, the Veteran had no urinary symptoms, hematuria, dysuria, or burning sensation during urination. While the Veteran is competent to indicate changes in his urinary habits, the Board finds his assertion that he has bladder stones that are causally related to service to be not credible. The Veteran provided no details regarding any bladder stones during or after service. The service treatment records support the finding that the Veteran did not have bladder stones during service. As such, the Board finds that the record contains no credible evidence of a disease, injury, or event in service, to which any current bladder stones could be related. Based on the evidence cited above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for bladder stones. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for bladder stones, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 8. Entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot. The Veteran contends that he has a current diagnosis of athlete’s foot that is causally related to his active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has athlete’s foot that is related to his active service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of athlete’s foot. Specifically, in October 2011, the Veteran denied any chronic health conditions and was not on any medications. In September 2012, the Veteran had no skin symptoms. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms of athlete’s foot, such as itching or changes in skin integrity, the Board finds his assertion that he has athlete’s foot that is causally related to service to be not credible. The Veteran provided no details regarding any complaints of athlete’s foot during or after service. The service treatment records support the finding that the Veteran did not have athlete’s foot symptoms or a diagnosis during service. As such, the Board finds that the record contains no credible evidence of a disease, injury, or event in service, to which any current athlete’s foot could be related. Based on the evidence cited above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for athlete’s foot. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for athlete’s foot, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 9. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability. The Veteran contends that he has a current left shoulder disability that is causally related to his active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current left shoulder disability that is related to his active service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a left shoulder disability. Specifically, in September 2012, the Veteran reported no history of extremity problems that may result in the inability to safely perform essential job tasks. The Veteran also noted no abnormalities of the extremities, full range of motion, and no arthralgias. He was described as fit, exercised regularly, and had no difficulties associated with workouts. While the Veteran is competent to report left shoulder pain, the Board finds his assertion that he has a left shoulder disability that is causally related to service to be not credible. The Veteran provided no information regarding any left shoulder injury or complaints during or after service. The service treatment records support the finding that the Veteran did not have left shoulder symptoms, injury, or diagnosis during service. As such, the Board finds that the record contains no credible evidence of a disease, injury, or event in service, to which any current left shoulder disability could be related. Based on the evidence cited above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for a left shoulder disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a left shoulder disability, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 10. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability. The Veteran contends that he has a current back disability that is causally related to his active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current back disability that is related to his active service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a back disability. In September 2012, the Veteran denied any musculoskeletal complaints. He had no skeletal or spinal conditions. He was described as fit, exercised regularly, and had no difficulties associated with workouts. While the Veteran is competent to report back pain, the Board finds his assertion that he has a back disability that is causally related to service to be not credible. The Veteran provided no details regarding any back injury or complaints during or after service. The service treatment records support the finding that the Veteran did not have back symptoms, injury, or diagnosis during service. As such, the Board finds that the record contains no credible evidence of a disease, injury, or event in service, to which any current back disability could be related. Based on the evidence cited above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for a back disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a back disability, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 11. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability, also claimed as shin splints. The Veteran contends that he has a current left knee disability, also claimed as shin splints, that is causally related to his active service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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 preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current left knee disability that is related to his active service. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a left knee disability. Specifically, in September 2012, the Veteran reported no history of extremity problems that may result in the inability to safely perform essential job tasks. The Veteran also noted no abnormalities of the extremities, full range of motion, and no arthralgias. He was described as fit, exercised regularly, and had no difficulties associated with workouts. While the Veteran is competent to report knee pain, the Board finds his assertion that he has a left knee disability that is causally related to service to be not credible. The Veteran provided no details regarding any left knee injury or complaints during or after service. The service treatment records support the finding that the Veteran did not have any left knee symptoms, injury, or diagnosis during service. As such, the Board finds that the record contains no credible evidence of a disease, injury, or event in service, to which any current left knee disability could be related. Based on the evidence cited above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for a left knee disability. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a left knee disability, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for headaches is remanded. The Board notes that the Veteran reported frequent migraines in March 2004 while on active service. The Veteran is competent to report headaches. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for headaches because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s complaints of headaches in 2004 resulted in a current disability that is causally related to the headaches in March 2004. 2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded. The Board notes that the Veteran reported anxiety symptoms during service beginning in January 2000. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran has a current acquired psychiatric disability that first manifested during active service. 3. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The Veteran reported bilateral hearing loss that is causally related to his noise exposure during active service or to his migraine headaches. The Veteran’s enlistment audiogram showed no hearing loss at entrance into service. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran currently has hearing loss for VA purposes that is causally related to noise exposure during service or to his migraine headaches. 4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus is remanded. The Veteran reported bilateral tinnitus that is causally related to his noise exposure during active service or to his migraine headaches. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s reported tinnitus is causally related to noise exposure during service or to his migraine headaches. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. The Board notes that the Veteran reported right shoulder pain in December 2011 while on active service. The Veteran is competent to report current right shoulder pain. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s complaints of right shoulder pain in December 2011 resulted in a current right shoulder disability. 6. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, also claimed as shin splints. The Board notes that the Veteran reported right lower leg myalgia in June 2004 while on active service. The Veteran is competent to report current right knee pain. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran’s complaints of right leg myalgia in June 2004 resulted in a current right knee disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for headaches. The examiner must review the claims file. Following a complete review of the evidence of record and with consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements, assuming the statements are credible for the limited purpose of the request herein, the medical professional is requested to provide the following opinion: Does the Veteran have a current headache disability that first manifested during service or is causally related to his active service? The examiner should specifically address the September 2012 flight medicine clinic report. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran’s condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a “disability” for the purpose of providing the requested opinions. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered. If any opinion cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what, if any, additional evidence would potentially allow for a more definitive opinion. 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for an acquired psychiatric disability. The examiner must review the claims file. Following a complete review of the evidence of record and with consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements, assuming the statements are credible for the limited purpose of the request herein, the medical professional is requested to provide the following opinion: Does the Veteran have a current acquired psychiatric disability that first manifested during service or is causally related to his active service? The examiner should specifically address the reports of anxiety symptoms during service and the post-service September 2012 note denying anxiety or other psychiatric condition. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered. If any opinion cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what, if any, additional evidence would potentially allow for a more definitive opinion. 4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus. The examiner must review the claims file. Following a complete review of the evidence of record and with consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements, assuming the statements are credible for the limited purpose of the request herein, the medical professional is requested to provide the following opinions: a.) Does the Veteran have a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes or bilateral tinnitus that first manifested during service or is causally related to his active service, specifically his assertions of noise exposure during service? The examiner should specifically address the audiometric findings during service. b.) Does the Veteran have a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes or bilateral tinnitus that is proximately due to or aggravated beyond its natural progression by his migraine headache disabilities. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered. If any opinion cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what, if any, additional evidence would potentially allow for a more definitive opinion. 5. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for a right shoulder or right knee disability. The examiner must review the claims file. Following a complete review of the evidence of record and with consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements, assuming the statements are credible for the limited purpose of the request herein, the medical professional is requested to provide the following opinions: a.) Does the Veteran have a current right shoulder disability that first manifested during service or is causally related to his active service? The examiner should specifically address the December 2011 complaints of right shoulder pain and diagnosis of right shoulder tendinitis. b.) Does the Veteran have a current right knee disability that first manifested during service or is causally related to his active service? The examiner should specifically address the June 2004 complaints of right leg pain and diagnosis of myalgia. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran’s condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a “disability” for the purpose of providing the requested opinions. (Continued on the next page)   A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions offered. If any opinion cannot be offered without resort to mere speculation, the examiner must fully explain why this is the case and identify what, if any, additional evidence would potentially allow for a more definitive opinion. 6. After undertaking the development above and any additional development deemed necessary, the Veteran’s claims should be readjudicated. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, the appellant and his representative should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and be given an appropriate period to respond thereto before the case is returned to the Board, if in order. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Patricia Veresink, 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.