Citation Nr: 21040775 Decision Date: 07/07/21 Archive Date: 07/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-48 987 DATE: July 7, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for neurologic disability, claimed as numbness and tingling, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the competent evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran has experienced a neurologic disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of his claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for neurologic disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1968 to August 1971, which includes service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of an April 2015 rating decision. This case was previously remanded by the Board in November 2018 for further development. Specifically, the Board instructed the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature of his claimed neurologic disability and to obtain a medical opinion as to whether any such disability is related to service. Pursuant to the Board's remand, the Veteran was afforded an appropriate VA examination in September 2019. Therefore, there has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The case has been returned to the Board for review. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with regard to the duty to notify or duty to assist as they pertain to the issue decided herein. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Entitlement to service connection for neurologic disability is denied. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In this case, the Veteran contends that he has a current neurologic disability that is directly related to his active service. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his claimed neurologic disability is related to exposure to herbicide agents while serving in the Republic of Vietnam. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has current neurologic disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board finds, for the following reasons, that the Veteran does not experience any current neurologic disability, and has not experienced such disability at any time since his service connection claim was received in July 2014 or prior thereto. Cf. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013) (Board erred in failing to address pre-claim evidence in assessing whether a current disability existed, for purposes of service connection, at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The existence of current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 and 1131 as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In this case, the evidence of record does not contain probative evidence of a neurologic disability at any time proximate to, or during, the pendency of the Veteran's claim. During the pendency of the claim, the Veteran has received VA medical treatment and was provided a VA examination in September 2019. A review of the Veteran's medical records reflects that he has reported pain and tingling in his extremities, but his records do not otherwise demonstrate treatment for or a diagnosis of a neurologic disability. Additionally, the September 2019 VA examiner examined the Veteran and determined that he does not have a current nerve condition or peripheral neuropathy, despite the symptoms noted during the examination. The Board is cognizant of the holding in Saunders v. Wilkie which stated that where pain causes functional impairment, a disability for VA compensation purposes exists, even if there is no underlying diagnosis. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In sum, pain alone resulting in functional impairment is in fact a disability, and should not be summarily discounted as a bar to benefits based on a finding of no current diagnosis. However, in this instance, the Veteran does not claim, nor do his medical records show, that he experiences any functional impairment due to his neurologic pain. As such, the Veteran's neurologic pain alone does not amount to a functional impairment of earning capacity, and Saunders is not applicable in this case. Thus, the most probative evidence fails to demonstrate that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has had a neurologic disability that had its onset during active service or that there is a current neurologic disability that is otherwise causally or etiologically related to his active service. As such, service connection for a neurologic disability is not warranted. Degmetich, 104 F. 3d at 1333. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions that he has a neurologic disability. However, he has not been shown to have the medical training and knowledge required to diagnose such disability. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331, 1336-37. Therefore, his assertions are not considered competent and do not weigh against the probative value of the medical treatment records, including the VA medical treatment records and VA examination, which do not show that he experiences any current neurologic disability. While the Veteran has reported symptoms that he attributes to a neurologic disability, he is competent to report such symptoms, and the Board has no legitimate basis to refute the credibility of his reports, the Board nonetheless finds that these symptoms are not a "disability" for VA compensation purposes. The Board cannot grant service connection for a symptom. Although the Board recognizes the Veteran's sincere belief in his claim, the most probative evidence of record does not show that he has had a neurologic disability at any point during or in proximity to the claim period. Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection for disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Thus, where, as here, the evidence establishes that the Veteran does not have the disability for which service connection is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. As such, service connection for neurologic disability is not warranted because there is no evidence of current neurologic disability upon which to predicate such an award. Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for neurologic disability is not warranted. In reaching the conclusion to deny the claim, 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 this instance. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Brian J. Elwood Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. G. LeMoine, 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.