Citation Nr: 21039667 Decision Date: 07/01/21 Archive Date: 07/01/21 DOCKET NO. 14-22 506 DATE: July 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's right shoulder disorder is not etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from July 1991 to August 1993. He also served from October 2004 to January 2006. Additionally, the Veteran served in the Michigan Army National Guard until 2013. The matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the claim in June 2016, January 2020 and February 2021 for further development by the RO. The case has been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Service connection 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). Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder. The Veteran contends entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder. Specifically, the Veteran claims he is warranted service connection for right shoulder acromioclavicular and glenohumeral joint degenerative arthritis, also noted as a right shoulder disorder. The medical records show the Veteran has a current right shoulder impairment. See July 2016 VA examination. Further, the service treatment records (STRs) show the Veteran injured his shoulder during the line of duty in January 2001 by falling off a truck. See STRs dated January 7, 2001. The Veteran also reported a right shoulder injury when loading duffle bags into the back of a truck in 2004, noting a pop in the shoulder and feeling his right arm go numb. Further, the Veteran was also seen for his right shoulder pain and right arm numbness in December 2009, July 2010 and August 2011 while in the National Guard. The Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination in November 2011, however he failed to report for the examination, and the matter was remanded so the Veteran could be afforded another opportunity to appear for a VA examination. The July 2016 VA Shoulder and Arm Conditions DBQ examiner stated there is no medical nexus establishing causality between current complaints and military service. The Veteran was not medically discharged from the military, and service medical records evidence that Veteran was medically qualified to complete the term of his active service. Degenerative changes are a part of the normal aging process. The July 2016 VA examination and February 2020 VA examination both note that the imaging testing reveal degenerative changes and degenerative arthritis of the Veteran's right shoulder. In January 2020, the Board issued a remand, finding that the June 2016 VA medical examination was inadequate. The Veteran was then afforded another VA examination in February 2020. The February 2020 VA examiner concluded that there was no medical nexus establishing causality between the current complaint and military service. The examiner also stated that there was no residual or chronic disability subject to service connection shown by service medical records or demonstrated by evidence following service. Furthermore, the examiner noted that the Veteran was not medically discharged from the military and the service records show that the Veteran was medically qualified to complete his tour of duty. Finally, the examiner stated that the degenerative changes in the right shoulder are part of the normal aging process. However, the January 2020 Board remand directives asked for a new examiner to elicit a complete history from the Veteran and provide written consideration of the Veteran's statements. The remand directives also stated that the examiner must opine whether the right shoulder disability is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the 2001 fall. The February 2020 VA examiner did not properly follow the remand directives as the examiner only vaguely referenced service and made no specific mention of the Veteran's report of his popping shoulder in 2004 when loading the back of a truck while on active duty. Therefore, the February 2020 VA examination fails to consider or mention the Veteran's reported in-service injury from 2004, and the Board remanded the matter again in February 2021. The Veteran was afforded another VA examination, Shoulder and Arm Conditions DBQ, conducted on April 2021. The examiner opined, that the Veteran's right shoulder strain resolved with no residual functional deficit and is less likely as not incurred in or caused by military service. The examiner's rationale is as follows: There is no medical nexus established. No residual or chronic disability subject to service connection is shown by the service medical records or demonstrated by evidence following service. The Veteran was not medically discharged from the military. Service medical records evidence that the Veteran was medically qualified to complete his active duty tour. The Veteran has been out of the military for 15 years. The Veteran states he fell off a truck in 2001. The Veteran was later in the Army National Guard (ANG). The Veteran states that no x-rays were taken at the Midland Hospital, and he was returned to duty. He was able to continue in the military, retiring 12 years later in 2013. The Veteran states he has had no surgery on his right shoulder, and he is not under the care of a physician for his shoulder. He states that in 2004 he was loading a duffel bag and felt a pop. The Veteran states that he went to sick call the next day and was given exercises to do. He states that he returned to duty and continued in the military until he retired in 2013 after 17.5 years. The Veteran is not on disability for his right shoulder. He states he is able to do his job as a computer technician which involves picking up computers, installing them, and running cable. The Veteran states he is not under the care of a physician for his right shoulder. After review of the evidence, the Board concludes service connection is not warranted for the right shoulder disability. The medical evidence shows that the Veteran's current right shoulder injury did not occur during and is not related to his service. In this case, the Board affords significant probative weight to the April 2021 VA examination and opinion that are based on an accurate medical history as well as extensive medical documentation provided in the claims file, to include the Veteran's service treatment records, VA treatment records, and private medical treatment records. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (noting that most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning). While the Board is sympathetic to the claim, the Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a diagnosis regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex. He does not have the requisite specialized knowledge, training, or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine cannot be applied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinksi, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Thus, service connection for right shoulder disability is not warranted. B. G. LeMoine Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Ottley III 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.