Citation Nr: 21041368 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/08/21 DOCKET NO. 05-32 937 DATE: July 9, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a thoracolumbar spine disability is denied. Service connection for a pelvic disability is denied. Service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a thoracolumbar spine disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service event, injury, or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a pelvic disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service event, injury, or disease. 3. The Veteran has not had a diagnosis of right lower extremity radiculopathy at any point during the appeal period. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a thoracolumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a pelvic disability, status post bilateral hip replacements, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3,307, 3.309. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1963 to September 1966, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This case has a long procedural history which has previously been detailed by the Board, but will be reiterated here for procedural purposes. In July 2007, the Veteran testified at a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge who is no longer working at the Board. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In November 2008, the Board reopened the claim for service connection for a pelvic disability and remanded this claim along with the claims for service connection for a thoracolumbar spine disability and right lower extremity radiculopathy. In November 2009, the claims returned to the Board, and the Board denied the claims for service connection. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In December 2010, the Veteran, and the Secretary of VA (parties) filed a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) with respect to the November 2009 Board decision, to vacate and remand the claims back to the Board, which was granted by the Court. In September 2011, the claims were remanded by the Board pursuant to the JMR. The case returned to the Board in June 2012. In June 2013, a Veterans Law Judge requested an advisory medical opinion regarding the claim for service connection for a thoracolumbar spine disability and subsequently sought an addendum opinion. In April 2014 and March 2016, the claims were remanded by the Board for further development. In April 2018, the Board denied the claims for service connection. The Veteran appealed the Board's decision to the Court. In May 2020, the Court issued a Memorandum Decision that vacated and remanded the claims back to the Board. In accordance with the May 2020 Memorandum Decision, the Veteran's claims were remanded by the Board in December 2020. In that remand, the Board noted that the Veteran underwent a VA examination in March 2017, and the examiner provided an addendum opinion in November 2017. Unfortunately, both of these examinations were deemed inadequate by the Court, as they did not consider favorable findings made within the March 2016 Board remand instructions. As such, the Court, and subsequently the Board, determined that the Veteran should be afforded new VA examinations. That development having been completed, the Veteran's claims are before the Board once again and will be adjudicated below. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In order to establish service connection, the record must show competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d, 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). When considering such a claim for service connection, the Board must consider on a case-by-case basis, the competence and sufficiency of lay evidence offered to support a finding of service connection. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 Fed. Cir. 2007)). The mere conclusory or generalized lay statements that a service event or illness caused a current disability are insufficient. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the benefit of the doubt will be granted to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on the merits, the preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). Thoracolumbar Spine Disability The Veteran asserted that he has a current spine disability that was caused by service. During his active service, the Veteran performed multiple parachute jumps, and the Veteran believes that the parachute jumps performed during service contributed to his current spine and hip disabilities. As a paratrooper in service, the Veteran was found to have sustained repeated traumas through hard landings during jumps, and the impact would feasibly affect his lower extremities, ankles, knees, as well as his hips and low back due to the established landing method employed by the military. In the Veteran's August 1966 medical examination from separation from service, the Veteran's lower extremities, spine, and other musculoskeletal systems were determined to be in normal condition. In the Veteran's August 1966 report of medical history, the Veteran reported a positive history of recurrent back pain and a negative history of swollen or painful joints, cramps in his legs, history of broken bones, arthritis, or other deformity, trick, locked knee, neuritis, or paralysis; on the back of the Veteran's 1966 medical evaluation, the Veteran responded that he did not have any other illness or injury other than those noted. When addressed by the examiner regarding the history of back pain, the examiner noted that the Veteran had an occasional pinched nerve in his back. The Board has previously found as fact that the Veteran did not sustain any documented acute injuries to the hips or back during service, though he reported experiencing occasional symptoms involving a pinched nerve in his back at service discharge. The Veteran's July 1982 lumbosacral spine x-rays showed an impression of bony bridging anteriorly at T12 and L1; the lumbosacral spine was otherwise unremarkable. A January 1985 examination report shows that the Veteran reported that in 1982, he fell down at work and injured his lumbosacral spine, right hip, and right knee. He stated that he was hospitalized for 13 days and treated conservatively and was found to have arthritis in the right hip. The Veteran described having severe pain in his spine, right hip, and right knee, which prevented him from walking more than three to four blocks. Following a physical examination, the examiner diagnosed status post injury of spine, knee, and arthritis of the right hip. January 1985 x-rays of the spine, right knee, and bilateral hips showed a normal examination of the spine, a normal x-ray of the right knee, and changes consistent with aseptic necrosis and secondary degenerative changes of the right hip, and minor findings suggesting early changes of aseptic necrosis of the left hip joint. In June 1985, the Veteran submitted a claim for Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits. When asked what his disabling conditions were, he included arthritis of the hips and lower back. When asked when did these conditions first bother him, he responded June 1982. In an August 1985 VA examination report, the Veteran documented that in 1982, he fell from a truck and injured his back. When addressing the Veteran's musculoskeletal system, the examiner wrote that the Veteran had a history of arthritis of the back, hip, and right knee for about three years. X-rays taken at that time showed that the right knee had no bone or joint pathology, and the spine, pelvis, and hips showed curvature and alignment which were normal. There was no evidence of old or recent fracture or dislocation. The intervertebral spaces were all of normal height. All articular surfaces were smooth, and no destructive lesion was seen. Both sacroiliacs were normal. The right hip x-ray showed advanced degenerated osteoarthritic changes. The left hip joint was normal. In March 2004 VA treatment records, when the Veteran was approximately 62 years old, a VA physiatrist wrote that the Veteran had significant changes in the lumbar spine, including spinal stenosis and narrowing foramina with nerve root encroachments. He stated that the Veteran was relatively young for the level of changes to the spine but that the Veteran informed him he was a paratrooper who did a lot of jumps, landing many times on his buttocks. As such, the physiatrist concluded that the Veteran's service may have been a contributory factor to the degree of changes in the Veteran's spine. In a February 2009 VA examination, an orthopedic surgeon acknowledged the Veteran's history of parachuting in service, the lack of evidence of treatment for injures in service, and the 1982 work-related injury. The surgeon concluded that the Veteran's degenerative disc disease of the spine was more likely than not caused by the Veteran's workplace accident in 1982, than by parachute jumping in service. The Board notes that the February 2009 opinion has previously been deemed inadequate as it contained an insufficient rationale for the opinions that the Veteran's hip disability and lumbar spine disability were not caused by his in-service parachute jumps. Specifically, the opinion did not contain a reason for the examiner's conclusions. A March 2012 examination showed that an examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's degenerative disc disease and avascular necrosis (AVN) of the hips were due to his active service, to include his jumps in service. The examiner explained that after a parachute jump, the impact is absorbed by the feet and ankles, and much less to the hips or the lumbar spine. The examiner noted that there was no evidence that the Veteran fell on his hips or lumbar spine during parachute jumps, nor complained of any pain during or shortly after service. The examiner also noted that the Veteran had a normal x-ray of the lumbar spine in 1982 and that there was a 20 year gap in the time between service and the onset of the condition. The examiner explained that more serious injuries, such as a fracture or dislocations, would be a far greater risk of AVN of the hips, and that micro trauma, such as that sustained from a parachute jump, would not cause AVN. In June 2013, the Board sought a Veterans Health Administration expert's medical opinion from an orthopedic spine specialist. The Board laid out the relevant background facts to assist the examiner in providing an informed opinion. In an October 2013 opinion, the VA specialist concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's current spine disability was related to his period of service, including the in-service parachute jumps. The VA specialist noted that x-rays were normal in 1982 and in 1985 and that the Veteran's complaints of recurrent back pain at the time of separation were unlikely to be caused by degenerative changes. The VA specialist added that contrary to the 2004 opinion, degenerative changes were commonly found in the Veteran's age group. In November 2013, the Board sought an addendum opinion from the VA specialist asking to explain whether the Veteran's hard parachute landings resulted in the currently diagnosed lumbar spine disability. In a January 2014 addendum opinion, the VA specialist wrote that he did not think there was evidence to suggest that the Veteran's currently diagnosed low back disorder was related to his period of in-service parachute jumps. The VA specialist explained that it could not be said that the recurrent back pain reported in service was indicative of an injury that led to degenerative changes diagnosed in 2004. The VA specialist wrote that degenerative changes were multifactorial in nature with aging being one of the most important factors. The VA specialist added that there was no evidence in the literature to suggest parachuting leads to increased incidence of lumbar degenerative changes. The VA specialist noted he was quoting from a recent article, which stated that parachuting does not accelerate the development of intervertebral disc degeneration. The VA specialist attached an abstract addressing the long-term effect of repetitive trauma by military parachuting on the lumbar spine. The conclusion of the abstract was that the study did not identify any significant differences in the development of lumbar degenerative changes between the parachutists and the non-parachutists over a 30-year follow-up suggesting that military parachuting itself does not accelerate the development of intervertebral disc degeneration. A September 2014 VA examination report contained an examiner's opinion finding that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's spine condition was due to his active service, to include his parachute jumps. The examiner stated that he carefully reviewed the record and that while back pain was noted in service, there was no objective evidence of recurrent back pain following service. The examiner stated that osteoarthritis of the spine is ubiquitous with age and would certainly be expected of one who has worked in construction and operated a forklift. An April 2017 VA examination report shows an examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's degenerative disc disease of the spine was caused or aggravated by his active service, to include his parachute jumps. The examiner noted that the Veteran had stated that the onset of his hip pain correlated with his in-service paratrooper jumps but that the service treatment records did not reflect complaints related to a hip condition. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that his pelvic condition was a result of his active service, to include parachute jumps. In a November 2017 addendum opinion, the April 2017 VA examiner definitively opined that the Veteran's in-service parachuting activity did not cause or aggravate his spine disorder, as there was no objective evidence of an injury during or shortly following service. The examiner also stated no change in the opinion regarding the Veteran's hip and pelvic condition was warranted, as the parachute jumps were considered in that opinion. The examiner again noted the absence of trauma in service and the presence of an intervening injury, which marked the inception of treatment for his hip disorders. At the time of the 2014 and 2017 medical opinions, the Board requested that when providing the medical opinions, the examiner must: "specifically discuss the impact of established traumas to the low back as a paratrooper, the in-service reports of recurrent low-back pain, and post-service lay reports of ongoing low-back pain from soon after service, as well as the established 1982 low-back [work-related] injury." The reason another medical opinion was requested in December 2020 is because CAVC found that the medical professionals who provided the 2014 and 2017 opinions failed to specifically address the finding that the Board made regarding the Veteran's in-service parachute jumping, which will be repeated immediately below: As a paratrooper in service, the Veteran is found to have sustained repeated traumas through hard landings during jumps. The impacts would have affected his lower extremities (ankles and knees) as well as his hips and low back due to the established landing method employed by the United States military. Paratroopers using the standard round canopy, as was used during the Veteran's service, were trained to land upright, legs firmly together, and then to collapse to the side and roll onto the hips and low back to distribute the not-inconsiderable force of landing over a larger area. While the 2014 and 2017 medical professionals acknowledged that the Veteran performed parachute jumping in service, they did not address the specific finding of repeated traumas through hard landings and the impacts on the Veteran's lower extremities, hips, and low back when providing the opinions. The examiners also did not address the Veteran's in-service and post-service complaints about low back pain. Thus, the Board found these opinions to be inadequate. The Board notes that it no longer believes that the Veteran received treatment for low back pain soon after service discharge until the time of the 1982 post-service, work-related injury. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran takes issue with this finding. See June 2021 Third Party Correspondence. The Veteran asserted that the Board previously determined that the Veteran was credible, and as such, cannot make later determinations. As to that assertion, the Board finds no laws or reasons that state that the Board cannot make timely determinations with each adjudication of the Veteran's issues. As noted in the beginning of this decision, the Veteran's case has a long procedural history which spans over a decade. While the Board understands the Veteran's dismay, over the course of time and development of the case, the facts have become more clear and the Board stands by the finding that the Veteran is not able to credibly report receiving treatment for low back pain soon after service until his work injury in 1982. In consideration of all of the above, an examiner was asked to provide an additional opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's spine disability. In a January 2021 opinion, an examiner determined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's spine disability had its onset during service from August 1963 to September 1966, or was otherwise related to service, including to traumas caused by hard parachute landings. The examiner reasoned that as stated in the medical opinion dated October 2014, there was no evidence of record that the Veteran sustained trauma to the hips as a paratrooper. The Veteran as well as his DD 214 confirmed that he earned his parachute badge after 5 qualifying jumps, and that he was medically fit for unrestricted duty, including outside continental United States (OCONUS) infantry assignments during subsequent years of military service. At the time of separation from active service, he had achieved the rate of E5, sergeant, serving as a lineman; and was fit for separation and transfer to USAR. He worked successfully in the civilian sector until work-related accident in 1982, at which time he injured back and bilateral hips, was placed on workman's comp, and then medically retired with SSA disability. The examiner explained that there was no evidence of record that documents a pre-existing back or hip injury prior to the work-related accident in 1982. The examiner also reasoned that the Veteran performed a total of five qualifying jumps in 1964 during Basic Airborne Training. There was no medical evidence of record or medical literature to support that the claimed back and hip conditions were caused by the five qualifying jumps in 1964; and or during the subsequent two and a half years of military service as a lineman; specifically, the examiner noted that 1) there was no medical evidence of record that the Veteran sustained repeated traumas through hard landing during jumps that affects his hips, low back, and lower extremities; 2) the Veteran's separation examination dated August 1966 wherein the Veteran reported a positive history of recurrent back pain was described by the physician examiner as an occasional pinched nerve back which resolved spontaneously; and the spine and lower extremity physical examination was normal; 3) in the absence of new medical evidence of record, the facts of the case, including the August 1966 normal right knee, lumbosacral spine, pelvis, and bilateral hip x-rays, the medical evidence of record and medical principles which have been repeatedly addressed with consistent analysis and logical evidence-based conclusions regarding nexus of causality, stand. The Board assigns the January 2021 VA opinions high probative weight, as the examiner performed a review of the Veteran's medical records, lay statements, and provided an adequate rationale for the opinion that the Veteran's spine disability did not result from active military service. The Board notes that the examiner specifically reviewed the Veteran's lengthy medical history, and responded to the prior Board remand with specificity as instructed. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions that the January 2021 VA examination is inadequate. See June 2021 Third Party Correspondence. The Veteran has asserted that the January 2021 examiner inappropriately referred to the October 2014 VA examination and found that there was no evidence of record that the Veteran sustained trauma to the hips as a paratrooper. As such, the Veteran asserted that the examiner based her rationale on a prior medical opinion which has been previously determined to be inadequate, and ignored the Board's request to accept as fact that the Veteran sustained repeated traumas from his parachute jump landings. In response to the Veteran's assertions, the Board notes that the previous 2014 and 2017 examinations were found to be inadequate because while they acknowledged that the Veteran performed parachuted jumps in service, they did not address the specific finding of repeated trauma resulting from hard landings. In contrast, in the January 2021 opinion, the VA examiner noted that "there was no medical evidence of record or medical literature to support that the claimed back and hip conditions were caused by the five qualifying jumps in 1964; and or during the subsequent two and a half years of military service as a lineman..." The examiner went on to list reasons that the negative nexus opinion provided was sound in nature. As such, the Board finds that the examiner adequately addressed findings of trauma resulting from parachute landings. Moreover, while the examiner referred to the October 2014 examination, the Board notes that the January 2021 examiner was simply agreeing with the statement made therein. The examiner otherwise provided an entirely different an individual opinion. The October 2014 VA examination was deemed inadequate due to failure to include certain findings, rather than because the contained findings were inaccurate. In that regard, a reference to the October 2014 opinion is not disqualifying. In addition, the Board notes that the January 2021 examiner considered the Veteran's statements and history. The examiner reviewed the Veteran's post-service record as well. While the Veteran contends that the January 2021 examination is not adequate, the Board disagrees. The examiner adequately reviewed the Veteran's history, and came to conclusions based on the available medical records and statements from the Veteran. The Board has considered the Veteran's statements linking his current back condition to his military service. While it is in error to categorically reject layperson nexus evidence as incompetent, the Board is allowed to consider the facts of a particular case to determine the layperson's competence. See Davidson v. Nicholson, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In this regard, the Board notes the Veteran is competent to report symptoms experienced in service and since such time. However, the Veteran is not competent to attribute his current condition to any instance of military service. He has not demonstrated that he is an expert in determining the etiology of a back condition and is a layperson in this regard. Therefore, the Board assigns low probative weight to his statements. The Board has also considered presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) for the Veteran's back condition, including based on a continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Board notes that in the previous Board remand, the Board determined that the Veteran's lay statements during the current appeal regarding treatment and ongoing pain in his low back soon after service discharge were inconsistent with what he documented in 1984 and 1985. What the Veteran documented within his records is consistent with each other in that he did not receive treatment for his musculoskeletal low back pain following service prior to his 1982 injury. Thus, the Board determined that the Veteran's allegations of ongoing treatment for low back pain or hip pain soon following service discharge were not credible. The Board stands by this determination at the present time. As such, the evidence does not support granting service connection for the Veteran's back condition on a presumptive basis or based on continuity of symptomatology. In conclusion, service connection for a back condition is not warranted. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a back condition, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Pelvic Disability During service the Veteran performed multiple parachute jumps, and the Veteran believes that the parachute jumps performed during service contributed to his current spine and hip disabilities. As a paratrooper in service, the Veteran was found to have sustained repeated traumas through hard landings during jumps, and the impact would feasibly affect his lower extremities, ankles, and knees, as well as his hips and low back due to the established landing method employed by the military. In July 1982 medical evidence, the Veteran's right hip showed no abnormalities radiographically. A January 1985 examination report shows that the Veteran reported that in 1982, he fell down at work and injured his lumbosacral spine, right hip, and right knee. He stated that he was hospitalized for 13 days and treated conservatively and was found to have arthritis in the right hip. The Veteran described having severe pain in his spine, right hip, and right knee, which prevented him from walking more than three to four blocks. Following a physical examination, the examiner diagnosed status post injury of spine, knee, and arthritis of the right hip. In June 1985, the Veteran submitted a claim for SSA disability benefits. When asked what his disabling conditions were, he included arthritis of the hips and lower back. When asked when did these conditions first bother him, he wrote in June 1982. In an August 1985 VA examination report, the Veteran documented that in 1982, he fell from a truck and injured his back. When addressing the Veteran's musculoskeletal system, the examiner wrote that the Veteran had a history of arthritis of the back, hip, and right knee for about three years. X-rays taken at that time showed that the right knee had no bone or joint pathology, and the spine pelvis, and hips showed curvature and alignment were normal. There was no evidence of old or recent fracture of dislocation. The intervertebral spaces were all of normal height. All articular surfaces were smooth, and no destructive lesion was seen. Both sacroiliacs were normal. The right hip x-ray showed advanced degenerated osteoarthritic changes. The left hip joint was normal. In 1994, the Veteran underwent a right hip replacement, and in 1997 he underwent a left hip replacement. A March 2012 examination showed that an examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's degenerative disc disease and AVN of the hips were due to his active service, to include his jumps in service. The examiner explained that after a parachute jump, the impact is absorbed by the feet and ankles, and much less to the hips or the lumbar spine. The examiner noted that there was no evidence that the Veteran fell on his hips or lumbar spine during parachute jumps, nor complained of any pain during or shortly after service. The examiner also noted that the Veteran had a normal x-ray of the lumbar spine in 1982 and that there was a 20 year gap in the time between service and the onset of the condition. The examiner explained that more serious injuries, such as a fracture or dislocations, would be a far greater risk of AVN of the hips, and that micro trauma, such as that sustained from a parachute jump, would not cause AVN. An October 2014 VA examination report shows an examiner opined that the Veteran's arthritis of the pelvis, to include AVN, was less likely than not caused by his active service, to include his parachute jumps. The examiner explained that there was no evidence of sustained trauma to the hips in active service or for years following until he suffered an accident in 1982 at work and was placed on workman's compensation. The examiner also noted the Veteran's history of alcohol abuse from 1969 to 1998 and found that to be a likely cause of his AVN. An April 2017 VA examination report shows an examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's degenerative disc disease of the spine was caused or aggravated by his active service, to include his parachute jumps. The examiner noted that the Veteran had stated that the onset of his hip pain correlated with his in-service paratrooper jumps but that the service treatment records did not reflect complaints related to a hip condition. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that his pelvic condition was a result of his active service, to include parachute jumps. In a November 2017 addendum opinion, the April 2017 VA examiner definitively opined that the Veteran's in-service parachuting activity did not cause or aggravate his spine disorder, as there was no objective evidence of an injury during or shortly following service. The examiner also stated no change in the opinion regarding the Veteran's hip and pelvic condition was warranted, as the parachute jumps were considered in that opinion. The examiner again noted the absence of trauma in service and the presence of an intervening injury, which marked the inception of treatment for his hip disorders. At the time of the 2014 and 2017 medical opinions, the Board had requested that when providing the medical opinions, the examiner must: "specifically discuss the impact of established traumas to the low back as a paratrooper, the in-service reports of recurrent low-back pain, and post-service lay reports of ongoing low-back pain from soon after service, as well as the established 1982 low-back [work-related] injury. The reason another medical opinion was requested by the Board in December 2020 was because CAVC found that the medical professionals who provided the 2014 and 2017 opinions failed to specifically address the finding that the Board made regarding the Veteran's in-service parachute jumping, which will be repeated immediately below: As a paratrooper in service, the Veteran is found to have sustained repeated traumas through hard landings during jumps. The impacts would have affected his lower extremities (ankles and knees) as well as his hips and low back due to the established landing method employed by the United States military. Paratroopers using the standard round canopy, as was used during the Veteran's service, were trained to land upright, legs firmly together, and then to collapse to the side and roll onto the hips and low back to distribute the not-inconsiderable force of landing over a larger area. While the 2014 and 2017 medical professionals acknowledged that the Veteran performed parachute jumping in service, they did not address the specific finding of repeated traumas through hard landings and the impacts on the Veteran's lower extremities, hips, and low back when providing the opinions. The examiners also did not address the Veteran's in-service and post-service complaints about low back pain. Thus, the Board has previously found these opinions to be inadequate. In consideration of the entirety of the above, an examiner was asked to provide an additional opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's hip and pelvic disability. In a January 2021 opinion, an examiner determined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's bilateral pelvic disability had its onset during service from August 1963 to September 1966, or was otherwise related to service, including to traumas caused by hard parachute landings. The examiner reasoned that as stated in the medical opinion dated October 2014, there was no evidence of record that the Veteran sustained trauma to the hips as a paratrooper. The Veteran and his DD 214 confirmed that he earned his parachute badge after five qualifying jumps, and that he was medically fit for unrestricted duty, including OCONUS infantry assignments during subsequent years of military service. At the time of separation from active service, he had achieved the rate of E5, sergeant, serving as a lineman; and was fit for separation and transfer to USAR. He worked successfully in the civilian sector until work-related accident in 1982, at which time he injured back and bilateral hips, was placed on workman's comp, and then medically retired with SSA disability. The examiner explained that there was no evidence of record that documents a pre-existing back or hip injury prior to the work-related accident in 1982. The examiner also reasoned that the Veteran performed a total of five qualifying jumps in 1964 during Basic Airborne Training. There was no medical evidence of record or medical literature to support that the claimed back and hip conditions were caused by the five qualifying jumps in 1964; and or during the subsequent two and a half years of military service as a lineman; specifically, the examiner noted that 1) there was no medical evidence of record that the Veteran sustained repeated traumas through hard landing during jumps that affects his hips, low back, and lower extremities; 2) the Veteran's separation examination dated August 1966 wherein the Veteran reported a positive history of recurrent back pain was described by the physician examiner as an occasional pinched nerve back which resolved spontaneously; and the spine and lower extremity physical examination was normal; 3) in the absence of new medical evidence of record, the facts of the case, including the August 1966 normal right knee, lumbosacral spine, pelvis, and bilateral hip x-rays, the medical evidence of record and medical principles which have been repeatedly addressed with consistent analysis and logical evidence-based conclusions regarding nexus of causality, stand. The Board assigns the January 2021 VA opinions high probative weight, as the examiner performed a review of the Veteran's medical records, lay statements, and provided an adequate rationale for the opinion that the Veteran's pelvic disability did not result from active military service nor was it caused or aggravated by his service-connected knee condition. The Board notes that the examiner specifically reviewed the Veteran's lengthy medical history, and responded to the prior Board remand with specificity as instructed. The Board notes that the Veteran's assertions regarding the adequateness of the January 2021 examination have been previously addressed. The Board has considered the Veteran's statements linking his current bilateral pelvic condition to his military service. While it is in error to categorically reject layperson nexus evidence as incompetent, the Board is allowed to consider the facts of a particular case to determine the layperson's competence. See Davidson v. Nicholson, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In this regard, the Board notes the Veteran is competent to report symptoms experienced in service and since such time. However, the Veteran is not competent to attribute his current condition to any instance of military service or to other medical conditions. He has not demonstrated that he is an expert in determining the etiology of a hip disability and is a layperson in this regard. Therefore, the Board assigns low probative weight to his statements. The Board has also considered presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) for the Veteran's bilateral hip condition, including based on a continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Board notes that in the previous Board remand, the Board determined that the Veteran's lay statements during the current appeal regarding treatment and ongoing pain in his low back soon after service discharge were inconsistent with what he documented in 1984 and 1985. What the Veteran documented within his records is consistent with each other in that he did not receive treatment for his musculoskeletal low back pain following service prior to his 1982 injury. Thus, the Board determined that the Veteran's allegations of ongoing treatment for low back pain or hip pain soon following service discharge were not credible. The Board stands by this determination at the present time. As such, the evidence does not support granting service connection for the Veteran's pelvic condition on a presumptive basis or based on continuity of symptomatology. In conclusion, service connection for a bilateral pelvic condition is not warranted. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hip condition, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Right Lower Extremity Radiculopathy The Veteran asserted that he had right lower extremity radiculopathy. The Veteran's August 1966 a medical examination from separation from service shows an evaluation of the Veteran's lower extremities and spine and other musculoskeletal systems were normal. Private hospitalization records from July 1982, show that an examiner wrote that the Veteran had developed a weakness of the legs for the past two to three days and the leg had become weak since June 2, 1982, when he fell off a truck and hurt his back. The examiner wrote that the Veteran had an x-ray that showed no fracture, and an x-ray of the right hip which revealed aseptic necrosis of the femur. A neurology consult was performed because of the weakness complaint, and the examiner wrote that an EMG found no nerve conduction defect, although there was some weakness of the thigh muscle. A myelogram was essentially normal. The final relevant diagnosis was aseptic necrosis right femur. A January 1985 examination report shows that the Veteran reported that in 1982, he fell down at work and injured his lumbosacral spine, right hip, and right knee. He stated that he was hospitalized for 13 days and treated conservatively and was found to have arthritis in the right hip. The Veteran described having severe pain in his spine, right hip, and right knee, which prevented him from walking more than three to four blocks. Following a physical examination, the examiner diagnosed status post injury of spine, knee, and arthritis of the right hip. In an August 1985 VA examination report, the Veteran documented that in 1982, he fell from a truck and injured his back. When addressing the Veteran's musculoskeletal system, the examiner wrote that the Veteran had a history of arthritis of the back, hip, and right knee for about three years. X-rays taken at that time showed that the right knee had no bone or joint pathology, and the spine pelvis, and hips showed curvature and alignment were normal. There was no evidence of old or recent fracture of dislocation. The intervertebral spaces were all of normal height. All articular surfaces were smooth, and no destructive lesion was seen. Both sacroiliacs were normal. The right hip x-ray showed advanced degenerated osteoarthritic changes. The left hip joint was normal. Overall, the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for complaints or diagnosis of any right lower extremity radiculopathy symptomatology while in active service. Notably, the Veteran's entrance examination in August 1963, as well as his separation examination in August 1966 both revealed normal lower extremities upon inspection. He also explicitly denied neuritis, tricked, or locked knees, paralysis, arthritis, or bone and other deformity at both examinations. The Veteran's post-service medical records indicate that the first notation of weakness of the legs was documented in July 1982 after the Veteran fell off of a truck at work, landing on his back and leg and complained of weakness in his legs bilaterally. An x-ray was conducted at that time which revealed no fracture. While the Veteran complained of bilateral leg pain following this incident, the private and VA treatment history of record, while voluminous in nature, revealed no diagnosis for radiculopathy. A February 2009 medical examiner found that the Veteran had a knee disability that was likely caused by his in-service parachute jumps. The Veteran complained of both pain and weakness bilaterally, and reported his work accident as his history of trauma. He also stated that he had constant use of a cane. No arthritis or loss of bone was noted. Imaging studies were conducted which revealed mild spurring at the intercondylar eminence of the right knee and slight medial joint space narrowing of the right knee. Mild degenerative changes were noted, not no patellar subluxation. No radiculopathy was found. The examiner did not address the Veteran's radiculopathy of the right lower extremity. In March 2012, a VA examiner referred to the Veteran's 1982 EMG and myelogram conducted which both revealed no radiculopathy or nerve condition and found that no evidence of a nerve condition was present at that time. In the Veteran's September 2014 VA thoracolumbar spine examination, the examiner indicated that there were no signs or symptoms of radiculopathy or any extremity. In a September 2014 podiatry evaluation, the examiner found sensorium grossly intact, vibratory to dull and sharp to touch, and lower extremity extensors and flexors revealed normal muscle strength of 5/5. No nerve condition was diagnosed. In October 2014 the Veteran was provided a VA hip and peripheral nerve examination. The Veteran complained of weakness in his legs. The examiner did not find any objective evidence of a peripheral nerve condition affecting the Veteran's right lower extremity, and the Veteran showed no signs, symptoms, or diagnosis of the condition. A subsequent VA examination conducted in March 2017confirmed these findings and found no evidence of a neurological condition. The most recent January 2021 VA opinions have not found that the Veteran has any nerve condition, or radiculopathy of any kind. The evidence weighs against the claim. The Veteran asserted that he had right lower extremity radiculopathy. However, his STRs, as well as post service medical records, while complete and extensive in nature, fail to cite any history of a diagnosis. Furthermore, tests and studies were conducted numerous times, all of which also failed to secure a diagnosis. Lastly, the notations of treatment for lower extremity pain and weakness did not appear until 1982 and were, by his own admission, a result of the work accident which he sustained. Therefore, his assertion of continued symptomatology or a current condition is not consistent with the objective evidence of record. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 73 (1997) (lay statements found in medical records when medical treatment was being rendered may be afforded greater probative value; statements made to physicians for purposes of diagnosis and treatment are exceptionally trustworthy because the declarant has a strong motive to tell the truth in order to receive proper care). Service connection may not be granted for a diagnosis of a disability by history. Sanchez-Benitez v. West, 13 Vet. App. 282 (1999). The Board emphasizes that the existence of a 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). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements and notes that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms as they come to him through his senses; however, radiculopathy is not the type of disorders that a lay person can provide competent evidence on questions of etiology or diagnosis. Such competent evidence has been provided by the medical personnel who have examined the Veteran during the 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 his statements. Therefore, in the absence of a current disability, the preponderance of the evidence is against service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy, and the appeal is denied. Timothy Berryman Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Vosburgh, 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.