Citation Nr: 21025356 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 16-21 513 DATE: April 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for cellulitis (claimed as knee, elbow, arms, and ankle cellulitis) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of cellulitis. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for cellulitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Preliminary Matters The Veteran had honorable active duty service with the United States Army from August 1970 to February 1972. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In April 2020, the Board remanded the issue on appeal for additional development. The issue has returned to the Board. The Board notes that since the October 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), new VA treatment records have been added to the record. These records, however, are not relevant to the issue of entitlement to service connection for cellulitis and no prejudice results to the Veteran in deciding the current appeal. Service Connection Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, the evidence must show: (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 or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995). In addition, for certain chronic diseases, a presumption of service connection arises if the disease is manifested to a degree of 10 percent within one year following discharge from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). The presumption is rebuttable by probative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.309, 3.309(a). When chronicity in service is not adequately supported, then a showing of continuity after discharge is required to support a claim for such diseases. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while credibility is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Rucker, 10 Vet. App. at 74; Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465. Lay statements may serve to support a claim for service connection by supporting the occurrence of lay-observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Finally, 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) requires that VA give ‘due consideration’ to ‘all pertinent medical and lay evidence’ in evaluating a claim for disability. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Specifically, ‘[l]ay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional.’ Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Entitlement to service connection for cellulitis (claimed as knee, elbow, arms, and ankle cellulitis) is denied. The Veteran contends entitlement to service connection for cellulitis. However, there is no evidence that shows that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of the disorder. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of sections 1110 and 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). Evidence must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed. On VA examination in June 2015, the examiner noted that in July 1971, while the Veteran was in service, he was treated with oral penicillin and underwent an incision and drainage of his right forearm, right knee, and anterior right ankle. The examiner further noted that the cellulitis was invariably described as “boils” in the infected areas. Purulence was expressed and, with the drainage and antibiotic coverage, the boils did not recur. On examination, the examiner identified three scars in those areas. The examiner also provided a diagnosis of cellulitis; however, he noted that the Veteran did not have any other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms related to cellulitis. In a March 2016 VA addendum report, upon review of the Veteran’s file, the examiner concluded that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of cellulitis/boils. The examiner further noted that each scar that was identified during the June 2015 VA examination is a direct result of an incision that the Veteran underwent during service for his boils/cellulitis. A subsequent VA addendum opinion was obtained in May 2020. The examiner concluded that there is no evidence in the Veteran’s medical record that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of cellulitis. The examiner clarified that the June 2015 examiner’s diagnosis of cellulitis was in reference to the history of the Veteran’s in-service cellulitis, as the physical examination at that time showed no cellulitis. Indeed, as indicated above, the June 2015 VA examiner noted that the Veteran did not have any other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms related to cellulitis. Because the evidence shows that the Veteran has not had a current diagnosis of cellulitis during the pendency of the appeal or any associated residuals, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted, and no discussion of the remaining elements is necessary. See Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 427, 431 (2006) (the absence of any one element will result in denial of service connection). Thus, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for cellulitis, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Board notes that, as previously indicated, the June 2015 VA examiner identified three scars in the right forearm, right knee, and anterior right ankle. The March 2016 VA examiner noted that each scar that was identified during the June 2015 VA examination is a direct result of an incision into his in-service boils/cellulitis. The Veteran is service connected for scars of the right forearm, right knee, and right ankle; thus, he is service connected for residuals of his in-service cellulitis. R. Erdheim Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Y. MacDonald, 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.