Citation Nr: 21026452 Decision Date: 05/03/21 Archive Date: 05/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-21 576 DATE: May 3, 2021 ORDER 1. Entitlement to service connection for a liver disorder is denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a neurological disability manifested by a tic (claimed as neurobehavioral effects of exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune (CWCL)) is denied. REMANDED 3. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. 4. Entitlement to service connection for a neck disability is remanded. 5. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is remanded. FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran is not shown to have a liver disorder. 2. The Veteran is not shown to have a neurological disorder manifested by a tic (a neurobehavioral effect of exposure to CWCL). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Service connection for a liver disorder is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.304. 2. Service connection for a neurological disorder manifested by a tic is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant is a Veteran who had active service from February 1975 to May 1978. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision. In December 2020, a hearing in the matter was held before the undersigned; a transcript is in the record. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability due to disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be granted for a disease initially diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38. C.F.R. § 3.303(d). To substantiate a claim of service connection, there must be evidence of: (1) a current claimed disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury in service. See Shedden v. Principi, 281 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all evidence of record and an evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Certain chronic disabilities may be presumed to be service connected if they become manifest to a compensable degree within a specified period of time postservice. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015). For such disease, service connection may be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after discharge. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Veteran asserts that he has a liver disorder and neurobehavioral effects (as identified at the Board hearing, a tic) that were incurred in service (claimed as due to exposure to CWCL). At the hearing, he testified that he has not received treatment for, or received a medical diagnosis of, a liver disorder or a CWCL-exposure-related tic (neurobehavioral effect). The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) from his active service do not show any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for a liver disorder or a neurological disorder identified as a tic, and claimed as a neurobehavioral effect of exposure to CWCL. The Veteran's postservice medical records do not show treatment for a liver disorder or a neurological disorder manifested by a tic (and claimed as to be a neurobehavioral effect of exposure to CWCL. A May 2017 treatment records noted that he did not have any liver disease. The Veteran has not submitted any medical evidence showing that he has a diagnosis of a liver disorder or a neurological disorder manifested by a tic that may be a neurobehavioral effect of exposure to CWCL. While he asserts that he has a liver disorder and/or neurological disorder manifested by a tic/a neurobehavioral effect of exposure to CWCL, the diagnoses of such disabilities require medical expertise informed by diagnostic studies; they are incapable of being diagnosed based on lay observation alone. The Veteran is layperson, and is not shown to have (nor has he alleged he has) any medical expertise. Therefore, he cannot establish he has the claimed disabilities by his own opinion; he has not submitted any medical opinion or treatise evidence supporting that he has these claimed disabilities. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there is no valid claim for service connection. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Here, it is not shown by competent evidence that the Veteran has, or during the pendency of these claims has had, either a chronic liver disorder or a neurological disorder, such as a tic, that may be a neurobehavioral effect of exposure to CWCL. Therefore, with respect to these claims, he has not met the initial threshold requirement for substantiating a claim of service connection (proof he has the disability for which service connection is sought. Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence is against these claims, and the appeal in the matters must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Regarding the claims of service connection for a back disability, a neck disability, and a right shoulder disability, the Veteran has testified that he sustained back, neck, and right shoulder injuries in a motor vehicle accident (MVA) in Vieques during service in Puerto Rico. He testified that the MVA was in the summer of 1976; that he was a passenger in a jeep; and the driver of the jeep received an Article 15 for the accident. He testified that he was seen by a corpsman, placed on light duty for a few days, and provided aspirin to take. His service personnel records show service in North Carolina, Virginia, California, and Hawaii, they do not show service in Puerto Rico. Given the specificity of his allegations, further development to verify that he was stationed in Puerto Rico, and if so, to verify the occurrence of the alleged MVA in Puerto Rico (which might be possible from unit records of the jeep driver (who received an Article 15) is needed. If the Veteran's service in Puerto Rico and the alleged MVA during such service are verified, The matters are REMANDED for the following: 1. Obtain from the Veteran identifying information (to include, when. where, and in what unit) regarding the Veteran's alleged service in Puerto Rico, and arrange for exhaustive development for confirmation by the appropriate service department that he had such service. If he provides insufficient information to seek verification (of where, when, and in what unit he was stationed/served in Puerto Rico), advise him what further information remains necessary for verification of his alleged service in Puerto Rico, and afford him opportunity to respond. 2. If (and only if) it is confirmed that the Veteran was stationed/served in Puerto Rico, obtain from him a detailed information regarding the alleged MVA there in which he claims he sustained injuries resulting in the claimed neck, low back, and right shoulder disabilities, including the base where he was then stationed, the unit in which he was then serving, where and when the MVA occurred, where he was taken for treatment, the name of the jeep driver, the unit in which the driver of the jeep was then serving, etc., and arrange for exhaustive development to corroborate the Veteran's reported injuries in an MVA while he was stationed in Puerto Rico. The scope of the search should include any existing records for the base where he reports he was stationed and the unit in which he reports he served, to include any related incident reports, property damage reports, sick reports, and any such reports pertaining to the jeep reports, including that person's and his units reports of any disciplinary proceedings that stemmed from that incident. He should also identify the first responders to the MVA, who transported him to a treatment facility, and the facility where he was taken, to enable a search from such sources. All leads should be pursued to their logical conclusions (until all means of further development are exhausted). 3. If (and only if) it is reasonably confirmed that the Veteran was involved in a MVA while stationed/serving in Puerto Rico, arrange for all further development necessary to properly decide whether he has current neck, back, and/or right shoulder disabilities that were at least as likely as not incurred in such MVA, to include seeking from him identification of all providers of treatment he received for the claimed disabilities since that MVA occurred (records of which are outstanding) and authorizations for VA to secure any such private records; obtaining the records; and if needed, examinations to determine whether there is a nexus between the current claimed disabilities and the MVA in service. GEORGE R. SENYK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Berryman, 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.