Citation Nr: 21027597 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 10-19 673 DATE: May 6, 2021 ORDER Service connection for hepatitis is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had hepatitis at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for hepatitis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from July 1967 to June 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2008 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2019, the Board remanded this matter for further development. The Veteran has not raised any issues with the duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board ... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); see also Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a disability, a Veteran 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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Veteran is claiming service connection for hepatitis. For the following reasons, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. An essential element for service connection is the existence of a present disability. After review of the record, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a present disability of hepatitis. At a July 2012 decision review officer hearing, the Veteran stated that he received treatment for hepatitis in 2006. Treatment records were obtained, but they do not document any treatment or diagnosis of hepatitis. In August 2020, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination to determine if he has a diagnosis of hepatitis. The examiner noted a history of hepatitis in-service but found it to have resolved during service. A review of service treatment records confirms that the Veteran's in-service hepatitis resolved during service. The examiner also reviewed blood test results the Veteran provided and determined that they did not support finding the Veteran to have a current diagnosis of hepatitis. The examiner is competent to make these findings, the Board finds them to be credible, and affords their findings great probative weight. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that he has hepatitis. Though the Veteran's service treatment records show that he had hepatitis during service, the Veteran has not shown that he has the requisite medical knowledge to provide a medical diagnosis that he currently has hepatitis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board affords the Veteran's lay statement less probative weight and affords more probative weight to the findings of the VA examiner. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hepatitis. Because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against this claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, service connection for hepatitis is denied. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, 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.