Citation Nr: 21027239 Decision Date: 05/05/21 Archive Date: 05/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-65 479 DATE: May 5, 2021 ORDER The issue of entitlement to service connection for chronic lumbar strain is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran developed chronic lumbar strain during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for chronic lumbar strain are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. VETERAN CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that his lower back condition began around March 2005 during a deployment training package for his first tour in Iraq. He attributes his back condition to having to wear body armor for extended periods of time. At that time, he recalls having received Motrin. Throughout the tour, the Veteran asserts that he experienced increasing pain but never checked in for a full exam because he was afraid he would be pulled out of service. Over time, he contends, his condition worsened. The Veteran attributes that worsening to his functioning as a crewman on amphibious assault vehicles and withstanding the heavy vibration associated with a tracked vehicle. The Veteran further contends that during the training package for his second tour in Iraq, around 2008, his back condition became noticeably worse. He attributes that to wearing much heavier equipment and operating in theater on foot as provisional rifle company, often having to run while wearing equipment. During his second tour the Veteran contends that he engaged in twice daily foot patrol carrying greater than 80lbs. He asserts that he experienced pain so sharp it brought him to his knees during that time, and he had to ask fellow Marines to help him stretch the area so he could rise to his feet. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps, during the Persian Gulf War, from January 2005 to November 2005 and again from December 2007 to January 2009. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In that decision the RO declined to reopen the Veteran's claim of service connection for lumbar strain because it determined that new and material evidence was not received. Subsequently, the RO determined that new and material evidence had been associated with the record but continued the denial of service connection for chronic lumbar strain. See 10/14/2017 SOC; 9/19/18 SSOC. The Board now finds that new and material evidence has been associated with the record thus warranting a reopening of the claim. In furtherance of that claim, there was a March 2021 Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ), and the transcript is of record. The Veteran is entitled to service connection for chronic lumbar strain, resolving reasonable doubt in his favor. Generally, to establish service connection, a showing of competent medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence must confirm (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 116667 (Fed. Cir 2004). Here, the record evidences a diagnosis of chronic lumbar sprain going back to eight months after the Veteran was released from active service. See 9/28/2009 C&P Exam. The Board now finds that the Veteran's lumbar strain began in service. He consistently reported having experienced back pain while in service and he is competent to report on the continuity of symptomatology. See 9/3/2009 VA21-4138 Statement in Support of Claim; 6/22/2015 Correspondence; 3/2/2021 Hearing; Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on all things of which he has personal knowledge derived from his own senses); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303(2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). Moreover, the Board finds his statement's credible given the consistency of his narrative over the span of twelve years and the lumbar strain diagnoses within eight months of release from service. Finally, a nexus exists between the Veteran's in-service symptoms and his diagnosed lumbar strain. The record reflects two VA examinations and two private provider opinions related to the Veteran's lumbar strain. While the November 2009 VA examination provided a diagnosis, it did not evaluate whether a nexus to service existed. The October 2017 VA examination is inadequate for VA purposes because it relied on inaccurate facts and did not consider the Veteran's lay statements. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301, 304 (2008); Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). On the other hand, the Veteran submitted two private opinions, one from his chiropractor and the other from his massage therapist. The Board finds the chiropractor and massage therapist competent to opine upon the likely cause of the Veteran's back disability and credible given the opinions' consistency with the Veteran's lay statements. See 12/23/2015 Medical Treatment Record -Non-Governmental Facility; 12/23/2015 Buddy/Lay Statement. Both opinions attribute the Veteran's back disability to service, but the Board affords the chiropractor's opinion the most probative weight given his 20 years of experience working with patients with consistent etiology. Resolving the benefit of the doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's currently diagnosed lumbar strain began in service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 3.102. Thus, service connection is granted. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Sloley, 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.