Citation Nr: 21027547 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 15-39 336 DATE: May 6, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left ankle disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from July 1981 to July 1984. 2. A current, chronic left ankle disorder has not been shown. CONCLUSION OF LAW A chronic left ankle disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in November 2018. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the record. In April 2019, the Board denied the appeal. He appealed to the Veterans Claims Court. In April 2020, the Court Clerk granted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). The appeal has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In order to warrant service connection, the evidence of record must first show a current diagnosis. In this regard, the Veteran testified at the Board hearing that he had not been diagnosed with any left ankle disorder, and denied that he sought treatment for his left ankle. Instead, he only stated that he heard cracking and popping when going up and down stairs. While there is a suggestion in the argument that the Veteran has been diagnosed with arthritis, no medical evidence supports that contention. Additionally, a January 2019 private medical opinion primarily discussing ulcerative colitis related in total "[the Veteran] also suffers from left ankle instability most likely secondary to walking on uneven surfaces." Nonetheless, it is unclear upon what bases the clinician provided this diagnosis. Except for the 1-sentence, there was no other rationale or a connection to active duty offered. Additionally, this diagnosis is not supported by any other evidence of record, to specifically include the Veteran's own testimony at his Board hearing and his statements at VA examinations. Therefore, less probative weight is assigned to this finding. On the other hand, a January 2021 VA examiner found no evidence of a current left ankle disorder. At that time, the Veteran denied any further strain or injury following a 1995 strain in service. He also denied flare-ups, instability, or any ankle pain, except occasionally with a change in seasons. No functional loss or impairment was noted, and range of motion was within normal limits. The examiner opined that the Veteran did not have a current left ankle disorder as there were no objective findings upon examination of the ankle. This is consistent with a March 2013 VA examination which also found no chronic left ankle disorder. Similarly, the Veteran has not submitted any additional VA or private treatment records which suggest that a left ankle disorder has been diagnosed. While there are multiple Problem Lists in the treatment record, none contain any notations of a left ankle disorder. Rather, the clinical records do not reflect complaints of, treatment for, or diagnoses related to the left ankle. In this regard, the medical records associated with the record for the relevant appeal period have failed to show a current, chronic diagnosis with respect to his left ankle. Service connection may not be granted for a diagnosis of disability by history. Sanchez-Benitez v. West, 13 Vet. App. 282 (1999). Accordingly, the medical evidence does not support the appeal as no current disorder or functional impairment is shown. The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements that to the extent that he has a left ankle disorder that was caused by service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to a diagnosis or etiology due to the medical complexity of the matter involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examinations obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Yacoub, 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.