Citation Nr: 21024202 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 16-30 515 DATE: April 22, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a low back disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that lumbar spine degenerative arthritis began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a low back disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from November 1991 to June 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision. It was previously remanded for additional development in October 2018. Service connection for a low back disability The Veteran contends that he has a current low back disability that is etiologically related to service, including back pain he experienced during 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, 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. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of degenerative joint disease/degenerative arthritis as evidenced by his November 2014 VA treatment records and May 2019 VA examination. However, the evidence is against a finding that he had any in-service incurrence of that condition. In a May 2016 statement, the Veteran stated that he experienced pain in his back when running with boots, and that he was placed on a running profile after going to sick call. He further stated that he was diagnosed with low back pain due to running in boots, and that he continued to experience pain with running at the time of his separation examination in April 1994. A review of his service treatment records shows they negative for any complaints, treatment or diagnoses related to the low back. Notably, he was treated for a variety of other conditions, including orthopedic problems related to shin splints and stress fractures, a left foot injury, left ankle injury, and left and right knee injuries. At the time of his separation examination, he denied a history of any recurrent back pain but noted the stress fractures in his legs. The fact that the Veteran was actively reporting various orthopedic concerns without any mention of the low back, including denying a history of back pain at the time of his separation, strongly suggests that the Veteran did not experience any back-related problems in service that were unreported. See AZ v. Shinseki, 731 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (recognizing the widely-held view that the absence of an entry in a record may be considered evidence that the fact did not occur if it appears that the fact would have been recorded if present). In a January 2015 statement, he indicated that he had included his back as a disability on his initial application for benefits after service. However, a review of his July 1994 claim only shows references to the right shoulder, stress fractures of the legs, finger infections, shaving irritation, ringing in the ears, athlete’s foot, the left ankle, hemorrhoids, and a knee disability. Finally, VA treatment records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with back disability until 2014. At the time, he reported that back pain started in 2010, many years after his separation from service in 1994. Based on the above, the Board does not find the Veteran’s contentions regarding back pain in service to be credible. Therefore, the overall weight of the evidence is against a finding that he experienced an event, injury or disease in service related to the low back. Because that element of the claim has not been met, service connection is not warranted. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Shamil Patel, 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.