Citation Nr: 21030859 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 14-35 535 DATE: May 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is denied. INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1971 to November 1973. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal an August 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Houston, Texas. In June 2017, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing has been associated with the claims file. In December 2019 and in January 2021, the above-captioned claims were remanded for additional development. After the issuance of a March 2021 supplemental statement of the case, the appeal has been remitted to the Board for further appellate review. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a left foot disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a right foot disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a left knee disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 4. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a right knee disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 5. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a back disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a left foot disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for a right foot disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 4. The criteria for service connection for a right knee disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 5. The criteria for service connection for a back disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Preliminarily, in January 2021, the Board remanded the Veteran's above-captioned claims for additional development. Specifically, the Board directed the RO to obtain a supplemental opinion from a January 2020 VA examiner as to the etiological relationship between the Veteran's disabilities and his active duty service. This opinion was obtained in February 2021 and associated with the record. The Board finds that the February 2021 opinion substantially complies with the remand directives and, thus, another remand is not required. The evidence of record includes current diagnoses of left foot, right foot, left knee, right knee, and back disabilities. The Veteran's service records do not demonstrate complaints of or treatment for any of the claimed disabilities. Throughout the pendency of this appeal, including during the June 2017 hearing, the Veteran asserted that the rigors of his service resulted in his current disabilities. He describes a variety of routine impacts from running on a ship, sliding down ladders, and other activities. The Veteran stated that, despite experiencing pain as a result of these activities, the culture of the military during his service was against seeking treatment as a demonstration of toughness. The salient question presented by the Veteran's claim is, thus, whether his current left foot, right foot, left knee, right knee, and/or back disability is/are etiologically related to his in-service experiences. The evidence of record includes only one competent opinion that address this question, a January 2020 VA examiner's opinion, with March 2021 addendum. In March 2020, the Veteran underwent VA examinations of his feet, knees, and back. After reviewing the evidence of record, including the Veteran's assertions, and administering a clinical evaluation, the examiner rendered the following supplemental etiological opinion in March 2021: [The] Veteran's back, knee, and feet conditions are not out of proportion for age and there is no objective evidence that they are due to a service injury. He did not seek any medical care for back, knees, or feet within a reasonable amount of time after separation [from military service] to establish a nexus between the conditions and service. His physical exam[ination] and radiological exam[inations] are not suggestive of such injuries. He currently has age related changes in his back, knees and feet. It is less likely than not that this curren[t] back, knee and feet conditions are due to military service. [capitalization omitted] In this, and in other cases, the Board may not base a decision on its own unsubstantiated medical conclusions. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991). The only probative etiological opinion of record is that of the January 2020 VA examiner, which is negative to the Veteran's claims. The Board finds that the VA examiner's opinion is highly probative. To the extent that the Veteran asserts his left foot, right foot, left knee, right knee, and/or back disabilities onset during active service or are otherwise related to his active duty, the Board finds that such a determination is more suited to the realm of medical, rather than lay expertise. The Veteran's statements are competent as to experiencing lay observable symptoms, such as pain; however, the etiology is too complex for a layperson to proffer a competent opinion. The evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran possesses the ability, knowledge, or experience to provide competent etiological opinions. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Veteran's lay assertions do not constitute competent evidence of a in this case. Lathan v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 359, 365 (1995). Accordingly, service connection is not warranted for left foot, right foot, left knee, right knee, or back disabilities. In reaching these decisions, the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claims, the doctrine is not for application. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sean G. Pflugner, 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.