Citation Nr: 22002467 Decision Date: 01/19/22 Archive Date: 01/19/22 DOCKET NO. 14-33 553 DATE: January 19, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for frostbite of the right ear is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, to include mitral valve prolapse leaflet syndrome (MVP), is denied. Entitlement to service connection for depression is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a current disability related to right ear frostbite. 2. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of MVP. 3. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for depression (or another acquired psychiatric disorder). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a right ear frostbite disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for a heart disability, to include mitral valve prolapse leaflet syndrome (MVP), have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for depression have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from October 1968 to October 1971, September 1973 to February 1976, August 1997 to May 1998, June 2000 to December 2000, March 2001 to October 2002, November 2002 to November 2003, February 2004 to August 2004, and September 2007 to September 2008. These claims were previously before the Board in September 2018, and they were remanded for further development. The Board now finds that there has been substantial compliance with the prior remand directives. SERVICE CONNECTION Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 1. Entitlement to service connection for frostbite of the right ear is denied. The Board has deliberately reviewed the claims file. After review, the Board observes that the preponderance of the evidence reflects that the Veteran does not have a current disability related to the residuals of frostbite of the right ear. Medical records, including the April 2012 VA hearing loss examination, contain no mention of a frostbite injury, or a residual disability related to frostbite. The Board notes that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. In the absence of proof of a current right ear residual of frostbite disorder, there can be no awarded claim for service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Ultimately, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence stands counter to the Veteran's claim for service connection for a frostbite of the right ear disability. Since the preponderance of the evidence is against this claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), regarding reasonable doubt, are not applicable. The Veteran's claim for service connection for the residuals of frostbite of the right ear disability must be denied, because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against his claim. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability, to include mitral valve prolapse leaflet syndrome (MVP), is denied. The Board has deliberately reviewed the Veteran's claims file. The board observes that the Veteran made complaints of chest pain during service in the United States Army. At this time, the Veteran attributes the in-service chest pain complaints, at least in part, to MVP. In December 2007, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) reflect an early "systolic click" on examination, but an echocardiogram showed both unremarkable mitral and aortic valves. The physician concluded that the Veteran did not have MVP. However, in 2008, the Veteran's STRs reflected MVP on the medical problem list. In May 2014, a VA examination report reflects a diagnosis of valvular heart disease since 2007. Therein, the VA examiner noted the in-service suspicion of MVP and the negative echocardiogram. The examiner opined that MVP was less likely than not related to service, because while the Veteran had suspicion of MVP during service, an inservice echocardiogram was negative and the May 2014 EKG and chest x-rays were normal. A June 2021 VA heart examiner, upon review of the Veteran's medical records and a contemporaneous examination, stated that the Veteran did not currently have, and never had, MVP. The Board assigns significant probative value to the June 2021 VA physician's opinion as it was based on a contemporaneous physical examination and contained specific and detailed references to the Veteran's clinical records. The Board notes that, in July 2021, the Veteran was granted service connection for costochondritis. The Board also notes that, in June 2021, a VA examiner indicated that the Veteran's current chest pain was likely related to the service-connected costochondritis disability. The Board again notes that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. In the absence of proof of a current MVP disorder there can be no claim awarded for service connection of a MVP disability. See Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. Ultimately, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence stands counter to the Veteran's claim for service connection for a MVP disability. Since the preponderance of the evidence is against this claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), regarding reasonable doubt, are not applicable. The Veteran's claim for service connection for MVP must be denied, because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against his claim. 3. Entitlement to service connection for depression is denied. As an initial matte, the Board observes that the Veteran's STRS, including various records dated from September 2008 to December 2008, noted depression. The records contain few details of the circumstances surrounding the STR entries containing the depression notations. At a May 2014 VA mental disorders examination, the examiner noted the STRs that had entries relating to depression, but stated that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of depression or of any other psychiatric disorder. A review of the medical evidence dated subsequent to May 2014, including VA medical history entries and medication reports, reveal no disability and/or medications relating to an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Board again notes that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. In the absence of proof of a current acquired psychiatric disorder, there can be no claim awarded for service connection of a acquired psychiatric disability. See Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. Ultimately, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence stands counter to the Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. Since the preponderance of the evidence is against this claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), regarding reasonable doubt, are not applicable. The Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability must be denied, because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against his claim. Ultimately, the Board can find no record indicating that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder during the pendency of the appeal, and no such record has been referenced by the Veteran and/or his representative. In the absence of a current disability, service connection for an acquired psychiatric is denied. Conclusion(s) The Veteran's assertions that he has any of the disabilities on appeal have been considered. The Veteran has not been shown to possess the requisite medical training to diagnose heart, psychiatric, or disorders related to cold weather injuries. Moreover, the Veteran's lay evidence, to the extent provided, does not constitute competent evidence of current disabilities and lacks probative value. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See generally Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). RONALD LEE BLAKE JR. Acting Veterans' Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Nelson, D. 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.