Citation Nr: 21024160 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-34 139 DATE: April 22, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left shoulder disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran retired in February 2012 with over 20 years of active duty. 2. The Veteran reported left shoulder pain in service; however, symptoms were not shown to be chronic; a current left shoulder disorder is not shown. Rather, left shoulder pain is part and parcel of the already service-connected left upper extremity (LUE) radiculopathy. CONCLUSION OF LAW A left shoulder disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2019. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the claims file. Service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As to a current disorder, the Veteran was diagnosed with left cervical radiculopathy in 2010. Therefore, the first element of service connection is met. As to an in-service incurrence, in a November 2009 clinical record, the Veteran reported that left shoulder pain began in-service in 2005. Service treatment records reflect that in September 2005, he developed tingling and numbness in his fingers and was diagnosed with a pinched nerve. Further, in a March 2011 National Guard examination, he reported shoulder pain. As he reported left shoulder pain in service, the second element of service connection is met. As to nexus, in a November 2020 VA examination, the Veteran complained of pain and paresthesias in the LUE beginning in 2005. He also stated that he experienced persistent LUE numbness and tingling. Upon examination, the examiner opined that a left shoulder disorder was less likely than not incurred in service. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran did not have a left shoulder disorder. Rather, symptoms of radiculopathy of the LUE, for which the Veteran was already service connected, were manifesting as shoulder pain. A reasonable reading of this opinion is that there is no disability of the left shoulder but left shoulder pain is part and parcel of the already service-connected LUE radiculopathy. There is no contradictory opinion. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support the claim of service connection. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements and testimony that a left shoulder disorder began in service. While he is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it came to him through his senses, he is not competent to offer an etiology of this disorder. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examinations obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board’s consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28. Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ragofsky, Attorney Advisor 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.