Citation Nr: 21032741 Decision Date: 05/27/21 Archive Date: 05/27/21 DOCKET NO. 18-03 283 DATE: May 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left ankle disorder is denied. Service connection for a left foot disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran had active duty from June 1985 to June 1989. 2. A left ankle disorder, diagnosed as a collateral ligament sprain, and a left foot disorder, diagnosed as plantar fasciitis and metatarsalgia, were not shown in service and are not casually or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. A left ankle disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2020). 2. A left foot disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS As a procedural matter, the Board remanded the issues in November 2018 and August 2020. It is again before the Board for adjudication. 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). Turning to the evidence, the Veteran contends that left ankle and left foot disorders were incurred in service. As the appeals are essentially based on the same theory of entitlement, they will be discussed together. As to a current disorder, in a May 2017 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran had a large osteophyte on the left ankle; however, she did not diagnose a left ankle or left foot disorder. Nevertheless, he was diagnosed with a left collateral ligament sprain, left plantar fasciitis, and left metatarsalgia in 2021. Therefore, the first element of service connection is met. As to an in-service incurrence, the Veteran contends that he incurred left ankle and foot pain in service due to serving as a parachutist. While personnel records show that he served as a parachutist in service, service treatment records (STRs) are absent of complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for a left ankle or left foot disorder. Specifically, the Veteran sought in-service treatment for left knee pain, a right ankle injury, and left wrist pain, among others, but did not report left ankle or left foot injuries. As he sought treatment for other medical complaints, it is reasonable to assume that had he experienced left ankle and left foot complaints in service, he would have sought treatment. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support the in-service incurrence of a chronic left ankle or left foot disorder. To the extent that the Veteran asserts that left ankle and left foot disorders were incurred in service, in a May 2017 VA opinion, the clinician opined that left ankle and left foot disorders were less likely than not incurred in service. She reasoned that STRs were absent of complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for a left ankle or left foot injury as well as of any hard jumps that would have caused a left ankle or left foot injury. This evidence weighs against the claims. Further, in a March 2021 VA examination, the Veteran reported left ankle and left foot pain due to marching and completing parachute jumps in service. Upon examination, the examiner opined that left ankle and left foot disorders were less likely than not incurred in service. The examiner reasoned that STRs were absent of complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for the left foot or left ankle and that there was no chronicity/continuity of care for these disorders. This evidence weighs against the claims. A review of the claims file reflects that there are no clinical records related to treatment for left ankle or left foot complaints. Based on the above, the medical evidence does not support that left ankle and left foot disorders were incurred in service. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support the claims of service connection. The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements that these disorders began in 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 the etiologies of his current disorders due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined the Veteran during his current appeal and by service records obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to the lay statements that have been submitted. Therefore, the appealed issues 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). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ragofsky, 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.