Citation Nr: 21024945 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-01 706A DATE: April 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for cutaneous leishmaniasis is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran had a diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis at any time during or proximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for cutaneous leishmaniasis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5107A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from January 1971 to August 1972. The Veteran died in April 2017. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the case for further development in June 2018. The case has since been returned to the Board for appellate review. During the pendency of this case, the Veteran died in April 2017. His surviving spouse submitted a VA Form 21-0847 Request for Substitution of Claimant Upon Death of Claimant and a VA Form 21-22 Appointment of Veterans Service Organization as Claimant Representative (appointing the Virginia Department of Veteran Services as her representative) in July 2017. Thereafter, VA issued a new VA Form 8 that listed the appellant as the claimant and the Virginia Department of Veteran services as the representative for the claim of entitlement to service connection for cutaneous leishmaniasis and deemed the appellant a valid claimant for substitution for the pending appeal. See VA Form 8, received in November 2017. As the appellant was recognized as a valid substitute, she has assumed the role as claimant in the matter at issue before the Board. Following the valid substitute recognition, the Board notified the appellant in a letter dated May 2018 that she had the right to request an optional Board hearing and asked that she respond within 30 days of the date of the letter with her decision as to whether she wanted a Board hearing. In May 2018, the appellant responded to the letter, advising that she wanted to withdraw her request for a Board hearing. As such, the optional Board hearing request is withdrawn. When this issue was last before the Board in June 2018, it was remanded to obtain all outstanding VA medical records, to contact the appellant and request authorization and consent to release any private medical records regarding the Veteran’s treatment for his cutaneous leishmaniasis, and to consider whether a VA addendum opinion was necessary to determine whether the Veteran had a current diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis during the period on appeal prior to his death. Pursuant to the June 2018 Board remand, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) obtained all outstanding VA medical records and associated said records with the claims file. Additionally, in November 2019, the AOJ sent the appellant a correspondence requesting she complete a VA Form 21-4142, Authorization to Disclose Information, related to private treatment records. However, the appellant did not respond to the correspondence or return the VA Form 21-4142. Although VA has a duty to assist the appellant in substantiating her claim, that duty is not a one-way street. Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214, 224 (2000); see also Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449, 452 (2000); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c). Accordingly, the Board finds that VA at least substantially complied with the June 2018 remand. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (b); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998); D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for cutaneous leishmaniasis is denied. The appellant seeks entitlement to service connection for cutaneous leishmaniasis that she asserts is related to the Veteran’s active service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran had cutaneous leishmaniasis that began during his active service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran did not have cutaneous leishmaniasis 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). The medical treatment records do not show that the Veteran was diagnosed with cutaneous leishmaniasis. The July 2013 VA examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined that he did not have a diagnosis of cutaneous leishmaniasis. Additionally, the Veteran’s VA treatment records do not reflect that he had cutaneous leishmaniasis during the pendency of the appeal. The Board acknowledges the appellant’s belief that the Veteran had cutaneous leishmaniasis. She is competent to report subjective symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, she is not considered competent to provide a diagnosis in this case because the issue is medically complex and requires medical knowledge and expertise the appellant has not been shown to have. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Because her statements are not competent, they are not probative in establishing that the Veteran had cutaneous leishmaniasis during or proximate to the pendency of the claim. Neither the appellant nor her representative has raised any other issues with regard to the duty to assist as they pertain to the issue of entitlement to service connection for cutaneous leishmaniasis. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). In summary, the record does not show that the Veteran had cutaneous leishmaniasis at any time during or recent to the filing of the claim. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In view of the foregoing, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for entitlement to service connection for cutaneous leishmaniasis. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the doctrine of reasonable doubt is not for application, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). B. G. LeMoine Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fairlie, 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.