Citation Nr: 21025292 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 17-32 428 DATE: April 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is granted. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1976 to January 1979. In April 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s lumbar spine disability is etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 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). Factual Background and Analysis The Veteran seeks service connection for a lumbar spine disability, which he contends originated in service. The medical evidence from the Huntington VAMC confirms the Veteran currently has a chronic lumbar strain with associated bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The central issue that must be resolved at this time is whether the Veteran’s current disability originated during service or is otherwise related to service. Initially, the Board notes the Veteran’s service treatment records show his spine was assessed as normal at the time of his December 1975 entrance examination. His records show he sustained an injury to his lumbar spine in January 1978 after being hit by a piece of plywood. The Veteran reported experiencing ongoing back pain at the time of his October 1978 separation examination. To date, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination; however, during his April 2021 hearing both the Veteran and his spouse testified that he has experienced ongoing back pain since his time in service. In this case, the Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a 3-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a “competent” source. The Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (Observing that once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible). The third step of this inquiry requires the Board to weigh the probative value of the proffered evidence in light of the entirety of the record. The Board also notes that under certain circumstances, lay evidence may be sufficient to establish a nexus. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Lay evidence has been found to be competent with regard to a disease that has “unique and readily identifiable features” that are “capable of lay observation.” See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308-09 (2007); see also Petitti v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 415, 427-28 (2015) (where the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims found objective evidence of pain need not come from a medical professional; a lay person may provide the requisite confirmation). Here, the Veteran has reported that he experienced ongoing back pain following his in-service injury. The Board finds the Veteran competent to report his experiences. It is generally within the competence of a lay person to identify and observe the effect of a disability under the ordinary conditions of daily life. Many symptoms are readily observable by a lay person. Accordingly, the lay evidence provided by the Veteran is unquestionably competent evidence. Further, the Board finds the Veteran’s own reports of ongoing pain to be highly probative, as the Veteran is indeed the only person truly capable of such observation. Moreover, the Board finds no reason to doubt his veracity. In sum, the Board is satisfied that the evidence supporting a nexus between the Veteran’s currently diagnosed back disability and his in-service injuries is at least in equipoise with the evidence against a nexus. Therefore, the Veteran is entitled to service connection for his lumbar spine disability. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Fraser, 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.