Citation Nr: 22017079 Decision Date: 03/24/22 Archive Date: 03/24/22 DOCKET NO. 17-53 926 DATE: March 24, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's low back disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for low back disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1976 to May 1976 and from June 1979 to February 1981. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2017 rating decision. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability The Veteran contends that his low back disability was caused by a personnel carrier accident during service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 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). 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, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of mild foraminal stenosis with mild disc protrusion, and while evidence shows that he did have back pain following an accident during service in November 1979, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's current low back disability began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Although the Veteran now contends that he has had low back pain since the accident in service, the Board notes that while the Veteran reported back pain in November 1979, this complaint was not repeated. In December 1980 he denied recurrent back pain, and was found to have a normal spine. The Board finds that the Veteran's contemporaneous statements about his symptoms are more probative than statements made decades after the fact. Therefore, the most persuasive evidence of record indicates that the Veteran's back pain in November 1979 was not recurrent, and resolved prior to separation from service. The March 2017 VA examination found that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's low back disability is related to service. The examiner discussed the record at length, including the Veteran's report that his low back pain began after the accident in service, but found that the record is not consistent with the report of back pain since service. As noted above, the Board agrees. The examiner's rationale was that the Veteran did not complain of acute-onset back symptoms until more than 30 years after service. The examiner noted that the Veteran is in his fifties and by the fourth or fifth decade of life, most individuals will have some degree of degenerative disc disease or arthritis due to the aging process and normal wear-and-tear. The examiner wrote that an MRI from 2014 showed mild disc protrusion, which would not spontaneously occur more than 30 years following military service. The examiner found that the Veteran's work as a medical tech is a more likely causative factor for development of a back condition due to the type of clients and activities performed at the Veteran's place of employment. The examiner's opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran believes that his low back disability is related to the in-service accident because he has not had any other accident that would affect his back. The Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the March 2017 VA examiner's negative nexus opinion. Moreover, the examiner found that the Veteran's low back disability is likely caused by normal wear-and-tear and the aging process, which means that the fact the Veteran has not been in an accident affecting his back other than the one in service is not relevant to the medical question at hand. (Continued on the next page) As the evidence persuasively weighs against the Veteran's claim, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved, and the claim is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). CLAIRE M. DAVIDOSKI Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Budd, 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.