Citation Nr: 21030118 Decision Date: 05/17/21 Archive Date: 05/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-01 686 DATE: May 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from January 2002 to June 2002 and from August 2002 to February 2013. 2. The most probative evidence does not reflect a diagnosed disability of either knee or pain resulting in functional impairment of either knee. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria to establish service connection for a right knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 (2020). 2. The criteria to establish service connection for a left knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The matters come before the Board on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision. The appeal was previously before the Board in September 2018, at which time it was remanded for further development. It now returns to the Board for appellate review. 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). Service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis for diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 under the following circumstances: (1) where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury are shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause; or (2) where there is continuity of symptomatology since service; or (3) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 . Pain alone can constitute a disability, but only if it results in functional impairment. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The November 2020 VA examination documented reports of pain and swelling in the right knee at night and pain and locking in the left knee at night. In addition, he indicated that his pain increased if he was on his feet all day and that he didn't run anymore. However, no loss of function was found through the clinical examination. Range of motion was normal and instability, sensory, and motor testing revealed no deficits. The examiner indicated that there was no diagnosis. A review of treatment notes also does not reflect a diagnosed disability of either knee or of symptoms causing functional impairment. Accordingly, the criterion of a current diagnosis is not met for this appeal. Absent a current diagnosis or functional impairment, there is no disorder for which service connection may be granted. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1333 (1997); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Thus, the medical evidence does not support the claim as there is no present disability. Service connection for right and left knee disorders is denied. The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements that he has disorders of the right and left knee 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 diagnosis or etiology of a current disorder 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 appeals are 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). SCOTT W. DALE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. M. Schaefer, 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.