Citation Nr: 22015167 Decision Date: 03/16/22 Archive Date: 03/16/22 DOCKET NO. 16-46 282 DATE: March 16, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a lower back condition is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT. 1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had TBI at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. 2.The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that a low back condition began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a TBI have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for a lower back condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1991 to October 1995. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Entitlement to service connection for a TBI The Veteran contends that he suffered various head injuries in service that resulted in his claimed TBI. Service treatment records (STRs) indicate a September 1991 head laceration after an accidental rifle muzzle strike. No loss of consciousness was documented at the time. An additional May 1995 diagnosis of post-concussion syndrome was noted after a motor vehicle accident with a subsequent normal May 1995 neurological examination. The August 1995 separation musculoskeletal and neurological examination was noted to be normal. In February 2013, the Veteran attended a VA TBI examination. The examiner noted that the Veteran does not have and has never had a TBI or residuals of TBI. The remaining evidence of record is silent for any diagnosis of TBI or residuals of TBI. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of TBI and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The February 2013 VA examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined that, while he experienced subjective symptoms of residuals of a TBI, he did not have a diagnosis of TBI. While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of TBI, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. Entitlement to service connection for a lower back condition The Veteran contends that his low back condition was the result of his active service. STRs indicate an April 1995 occurrence of mechanical low back pain. The August 1995 separation musculoskeletal examination was noted to be normal. In February 2013, the Veteran attended a VA Back Conditions examination. The examiner diagnosed mild degenerative disc disease (DDD) per MRI. The Veteran noted that he has been treated for low back pain for the past "2-3 years." The examiner opined that the Veteran's low back condition is less likely than not due to his active service. The rationale provided was that there was no objective evidence of a chronic disability related to mechanical low back pain in 1995. The remaining evidence of record details continued complaints and treatment of back pain but no discussion on its etiology. Based on foregoing evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. There is no diagnosis of a low back condition in the records between the end of the Veteran's active service in 1995 and 2013 diagnosis, more than 13 years later. This delay, while not conclusive, weighs against the establishment of service connection. See Mense v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 354, 356 (1991) (affirming Board's denial of service connection where veteran failed to account for lengthy time period between service and initial symptoms of disability). Additionally, the Board finds the February 2013 VA opinion of record the most probative evidence of record as to the etiology of the Veteran's low back condition because it was based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contain clear conclusions and supporting data. Further, the Board notes that the record does not contain a medical opinion that states otherwise. The Board considered the Veteran's lay assertions as to the etiology of his claimed disability. Although the Veteran is competent to attest to his experiences, he is not competent in these circumstances to opine as to the etiology of his low back condition. The Veteran has not been shown to have specialized medical knowledge that would be necessary to provide a competent opinion regarding service connection. The Board finds the VA opinion of record to be more probative in this regard. The examiner considered the Veteran's history, and ultimately concluded that from a medical perspective, it is less likely that his low back condition is related to service. In conclusion, the weight of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a low back condition. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. A. Elliott II, 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.