Citation Nr: 22016401 Decision Date: 03/22/22 Archive Date: 03/22/22 DOCKET NO. 17-58 040 DATE: March 22, 2022 ORDER Service connection for a back disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's back disability had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1975 to January 1978 and in the United States Air Force from August 1990 to June 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously remanded by the Board in an April 2019 decision for further development. Service Connection The Veteran filed a claim of service connection on January 31, 2015, which was denied in a September 2015 rating decision. 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); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Service connection for a back disability The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for his back disability as the onset of the condition started while he was on active duty. The Veteran stated that during his time in the Air Force, where his MOS was as an Air Transportation Supervisor, he was putting his body in strenuous positions pushing and pulling cargo and freight, bending, stooping, kneeling and crawling. See June 2015 Correspondence. While building airdrop loads, the Veteran stated he was required to lift parachutes up to 120 pounds in weight on a constant basis, which caused undue stress on his back, knees, neck and shoulders. As he not able to perform these duties in an ergonomically correct fashion, the undue stress from the positions he put his body in along with the jumping from the paratroop doors or ramps resulted in a back injury that has been chronic and recurrent since that time. See Id. The Veteran's spouse also provided a statement in support of his claim in which she corroborated the Veteran's account that his back disability began in the military where he was lifting heavy items, pushing, pulling, crawling etc. and this has resulted in back issues that he deals with on a daily basis. See June 2015 Statement in Support of Claim. She added that he has to help Veteran dress/undress and he has a difficult time standing and bending over, and difficulties with walking long distances, jogging, climbing and sitting or standing for long periods. The Veteran's service treatment records do not contain any complaints, treatment or diagnoses of back pain. The Veteran submitted more lay statements in support of his claim for service connection in which he described in detail his activities while in the Air Force that resulted in heavy lifting, constant pushing and pulling, loading and unloading and field packing of heavy parachutes at drop zones and repacking for staging. These activities required constant lifting and working in a bent over position. See February 2016 Correspondence. The Veteran reported that constant stress was put on his spine during his time in the Air Force, the Veteran experienced recurrent back pain since that time and finally underwent an epidural procedure in April 2011 on his lower spine due to the constant pain and incapacitation. See Id. The Veteran indicated that he continued to self-treat his back problems until approximately 2016. The Veteran added in his October 2017 Form 9 that he did not seek treatment for his back pain while in service but continued to suffer constant back strain. He did not re-enlist in service due to his back condition as he was unable to perform the PT test. In the April 2019 remand, the Board noted that the Veteran had provided detailed statements regarding the strenuous nature of his work in service and the injury incurred on his back and indicated that is statements were consistent with the nature of his military occupational specialties (MOS) and other military duties. In October 2019, a Colonel for the Air Force wrote a letter in support of Veteran's claim in which he reiterated that he assessed the Veteran for reenlistment in April 2010 and considered his physical condition at the time, including issues with his back, knees and ability to perform required fitness testing. The Colonel stated that due to Veteran's sustained physical ailments, the Veteran was not physically able to perform the duties and reenlistment was denied. See October 2019 Third Party Correspondence. The Veteran was afforded a VA back examination in December 2019 in which he was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with stenosis. The VA examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's back disability was incurred in or caused by any in-service injury, event or illness. The examiner opined that there is no objective evidence in the medical records that Veteran's back disability began during service or is related to service as the Service Treatment Records do not show any complaints, treatment or diagnoses of a back condition. Rather, the examiner opined that the back disability's etiology is most likely due to the Veteran's age as the initial mention of degenerative joint disease was noted in November 2010 and then in March 2011; Veteran's age was approximately 54 and 55 at the time. The Board acknowledges the negative nexus opinion in the December 2019 VA medical opinion, which is based on the absence of treatment in service for back problems. However, resolving any reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's back disability had its onset in service. The Veteran is competent to report regarding the symptoms he experienced during and since service and finds his testimony credible. See also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board also considers the Veteran's spouse's lay statements to be competent and credible. Consequently, the Board finds the lay and medical evidence shows that the Veteran's back disability began during service and has been recurrent since then. Thus, service connection for a back disability is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Zarar Ahmed, Attorney Advisor 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.