Citation Nr: 21041814 Decision Date: 07/10/21 Archive Date: 07/10/21 DOCKET NO. 18-26 685 DATE: July 10, 2021 ORDER Service connection for cervical strain and degenerative arthritis is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has experienced continuous symptoms of neck pain related to cervical strain and degenerative arthritis since his separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for cervical strain and degenerative arthritis are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from June 1988 to July 1992 and from November 1992 to February 1994. He was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2016 rating decision. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge who has since left the Board. In April 2021, he declined the opportunity to testify at an additional hearing. Service connection for a neck disability The Veteran contends that he has a current neck disability related to service. Specifically, his duties included manning the turret of a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. He described how he focused on looking through the target reticle of the turret, rather than the path ahead. As a result, when the vehicle traveled over rough terrain or made sudden movements, he was unprepared for them and experienced "whiplash" injuries. An August 2016 VA examination diagnosed cervical strain and degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine. Therefore, a current disability has been established. Regarding the in-service incurrence of the disability, service treatment records show the Veteran was seen for neck pain following a motor vehicle accident in January 1989. The accompanying x-ray showed no fractures, and there is no further documentation of any neck or cervical spine complaints during service. However, as noted earlier, the Veteran was awarded a CIB, which establishes combat service. Therefore, he may invoke 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) and use his lay testimony to show both that an event that allegedly caused a disability occurred in service and that the claimed disability itself was incurred in service, notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation in such service. Reeves v. Shinseki, 682 F.3d 988, 999 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Therefore, his statements alone establish the occurrence of the whiplash-type injuries during service. With respect to element (3), a link between the current condition and service, the Board notes that arthritis is among those conditions listed as "chronic" under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. For such conditions, the evidentiary requirements for establishing entitlement to service connection benefits are more relaxed. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Specifically, a continuity of symptoms after service can be shown, which is a distinct and lesser evidentiary burden than the nexus element of the above three-part test. Showing a continuity of symptoms after service itself "establishes the link, or nexus" to service and also "confirm[s] the existence of the chronic disease while in service or [during a] presumptive period." Id. at 1338-39. Here, the Veteran reported in May 2016 that he experienced neck pain symptoms for over 20 years, or dating back to service. He is competent to report that he experienced such symptoms, and his statements are credible and entitled to probative weight, as they are internally consistent and consistent with other evidence of record. Therefore, the evidence of record collectively establishes that the Veteran has a chronic cervical spine disability and experienced continuous symptoms of that disability dating back to his in-service injuries. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Shamil Patel, 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.