Citation Nr: 21042620 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 16-24 536A DATE: July 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left salpingo oophorectomy is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds her bilateral salpingo oophorectomy is causally related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Affording the Veteran, the benefit of the doubt, the criteria for service connection for left salpingo oophorectomy have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the Army National Guard with periods of active service, to include June 2001 to March 2006, January 2010 to April 2012, and May 2012 to January 2015. Further periods of active duty are described below. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. By way of procedural history, this matter was previously before the Board in December 2019. At that time, the Board issued a remand for further development. This matter has not come back before the Board for final adjudication. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed.Cir.2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran's current diagnosis of status post left salpingo oophorectomy is causally related to her active service. The Board finds that the evidence of record is in relative equipoise based on symptoms and surgical procedure the Veteran experienced during service. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) show the Veteran had an ectopic pregnancy and underwent a left salpingostomy. See September 2008 STR Orange Park Medical Center. The Veteran's physician also provided written documentation stating that she underwent surgery on September 5, 2008. See September 2008 Private North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates Medical Letter. The Board finds the evidence of record supports that the Veteran was on active duty at the time of the September 2008 surgery. Specifically, the Board finds the Veteran's order to active duty for special work is found in the claims file. The dates of active duty include September 4, 2008 to September 5, 2008 and September 8, 2008 to September 11, 2008. See Military Personnel Records. Therefore, the Board finds the evidence establishes that the Veteran was on active duty at the time of her September 2008 left salpingostomy. During the June 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that she underwent surgery during active duty. The Board finds the evidence of record supports her testimony. Pursuant to the December 2019 prior Board remand, the Veteran had a VA examination to determine the etiology of her left salpingo oophorectomy. However, the VA medical opinion is inadequate because the examiner's rationale notes that it is undetermined whether the Veteran was on active duty at the time. The evidence establishes that the Veteran was on active duty during the time of her surgery. Therefore, the Board finds the examiner's medical opinion is unsupported as this was the only evidence to support the examiner's negative opinion. See January 2020 VA Medical Opinion Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). Therefore, the evidence of record supports the Veteran's statements. As such, the Board must grant the claim of entitlement to service connection for left salpingo oophorectomy, as the evidence of record on balance reflects that it was an in-service occurrence. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Glaeser, Jennifer 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.