Citation Nr: 21031669 Decision Date: 05/24/21 Archive Date: 05/24/21 DOCKET NO. 19-15 886 DATE: May 24, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for residuals of aseptic meningitis and/or encephalitis, other than the headaches, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis, other than headaches, associated with the claimed aseptic meningitis/encephalitis. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing service connection for residuals of aseptic meningitis and/or encephalitis, other than the headaches, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the Army National Guard from April 1960 to October 1960 and the Army from July 1964 to May 1965. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Virtual hearing in October 2020; a transcript is of record. The record was left open for 90 days to allow the Veteran to submit additional evidence in support of his claim; however, no additional evidence has been submitted. By way of brief history, the Veteran submitted initial claims of service connection for, inter alia, headaches, pain in back, and pilonidal cysts in April 1969. These claims were denied in an unappealed June 1969 rating decision. In October 2013, the Veteran submitted a new claim for residuals of aseptic meningitis/encephalitis, bilateral hearing loss, ringing in the ears, low back pain, and headaches. In an unappealed July 2014 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for tinnitus and denied the claims of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss, residuals of aseptic meningitis/encephalitis, headaches (new and material evidence not submitted), and low back pain (new and material evidence not submitted). In October 2015, the Veteran again submitted claims for residuals of aseptic meningitis/encephalitis, bilateral hearing loss, low back pain, and headaches. In the February 2016 rating decision on appeal, the RO continued to deny the claims. The Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) in February 2016 with respect to the issues of entitlement to service connection for headaches and residuals of aseptic meningitis/encephalitis. In a May 2019 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for headaches. With respect to the current claim on appeal, the Board acknowledges that the issue has been framed as one to reopen, i.e., requiring new and material evidence based on the unappealed July 2014 rating decision. However, a review of the claims file shows that in December 2015, the Veteran submitted additional service treatment records (STRs) pertinent to his claimed encephalitis. Such STRs were not of record at the time of the July 2014 rating decision. As a result, the submission of new and material evidence is not needed. The claim will be considered as claim for service connection. 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of aseptic meningitis and encephalitis, other than the headaches. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, the Veteran seeks service connection for residuals of claimed aseptic meningitis/encephalitis. In October 2013 correspondence, the Veteran described in-service trauma to the head that resulted in severe headaches during and after service. He stated that he was also diagnosed with "spinal meningitis" at that time. During his Board hearing, the Veteran again described residual ringing in his ears, headaches, and back pain (arthritis). Again, service connection has been granted for headaches and tinnitus and claims of entitlement to service connection for low back pain were denied in June 1969, July 2014, and February 2016 rating decisions. STRs reflect that the Veteran was struck in the right supraorbital region of the head during basic training in October 1964. Persistent, severe headaches ensued. He was subsequently hospitalized for such complaints from November 1964 to January 1965 during which time a lumbar puncture revealed a slightly elevated protein. A contemporaneous neurological examination was within normal limits. X-rays of the lumbosacral spine were normal. A skull series of showed no significant abnormalities. The pertinent diagnosis was encephalopathy due to remote trauma, manifested by cephalgia ("treated" and "improved"). An April 17, 1965 Report of Psychiatric Evaluation shows that the Veteran administratively separated due to immature personality. The contemporaneous separation Report of Medical History noted a normal clinical evaluation of the head, face, neck, and scalp. Clinical examination of the neurologic and spine/musculoskeletal systems were also normal. Following service, private and VA treatment records reflect that the Veteran continued to complain of severe headaches associated with the in-service head injury. Based upon a longitudinal review of the record, the Board concludes that service connection is not warranted for non-headache related residuals of aseptic meningitis and/or encephalitis. After review of the Veteran's claims file and after conducting a physical examination of the Veteran, an April 2019 VA examiner concluded that, other than the now service-connected headaches, there was "no objective evidence to warrant a diagnosis associated with the claimed aseptic meningitis/encephalitis." See April 2019 Central Nervous System (CNS) and Neuromuscular Disease and Headaches Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). In support of this, the objective examination of the Veteran revealed no muscle weakness of the upper or lower extremities; neurologic examination (including speech, gait, muscle strength, deep tendon reflexes) was normal; and there was no depression, cognitive impairment or dementia, or any other mental health conditions attributable to a CNS disease. To the extent that the Veteran himself believes that he suffers from a residual disability related to meningitis/encephalitis (other than the service-connected headaches), the Veteran has not shown that he has specialized training sufficient to render such an opinion. Indeed, such a disability requires medical testing and expertise to diagnose. Accordingly, his opinion as to whether he suffers from a residual disability is not competent medical evidence. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). The Veteran also has not identified or submitted any evidence in support of his claim. Here, the most competent and probative evidence demonstrates that the Veteran does not suffer from residuals of meningitis/encephalitis (other than headaches). As the most probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has suffered from residuals of meningitis/encephalitis (other than headaches) during the course of the claim, service connection for that condition is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Board notes that, during the course of this appeal, the Veteran has variously endorsed low back pain and (pilonidal) cysts of the low back in association with his service. As explained above, the Veteran has previously filed, and the RO has separately adjudicated, claims seeking service connection for low back pain and (pilonidal) cysts. Such claims are not before the Board. In reaching the above conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Hoeft 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.