Citation Nr: 22018461 Decision Date: 03/29/22 Archive Date: 03/29/22 DOCKET NO. 16-17 562 DATE: March 29, 2022 ORDER Service connection for a dental condition is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his dental condition is at least as likely as not related to an August 1979 injury which occurred during active duty. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria are met for service connection for a dental condition. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1712, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.381. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1978 to January 1983. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In May 2019 and June 2021, the Board remanded the Veteran's claims for further development. The Board has reviewed all evidence in the claims file, with an emphasis on the evidence relevant to these appeals. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting its decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence of record. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). The Board will summarize the relevant evidence as appropriate and the analysis will focus on what the evidence shows, or fails to show, as to the claims. Affording the Veteran the benefit of doubt, the evidence of record is approximately balanced (that is, nearly equal) for and against finding the Veteran's currently diagnosed dental condition (loss of teeth) and symptoms associated with loose and painful teeth began after an August 1979 injury in service and have persisted in causing problems since active-duty service, thereby establishing a causal link (nexus) between the current diagnosis and the inservice injury. The Veteran provided competent and credible statements that his teeth problems began after the August 1979 explosion (See April 2006, July 2006, May 2013, and July 2021 statements in support of claim, photographs received March 2015, December 2015 notice of disagreement (NOD) which the Board affords much probative value. The Board also finds the April 2006 positive private causal link opinion provides some probative value of prior injury to the Veteran's teeth when coupled with the Veteran's statements and the treatment rendered by the private dentist. Some probative weight is given to the May 1986 VA examination, in so far as it corroborates the Veteran's account of an explosion and some injury to the face and mouth. However, less probative weight is given to the January 2020, August 2020, and October 2021 VA medical opinions, which provide negative causal link opinions, because the examiners do not address the Veteran's statements, nor whether the Veteran's condition was aggravated. The Board also finds that August 1979 service treatment records (STRs) noting loose and painful teeth, and STRs between February 1979 and September 1979 (which coincides with the August 1979 trauma to the Veteran's face and note some trauma) provide highly probative evidence of the injury sustained during service. The Board notes that this decision is considered a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal, however, were the Board unable to grant, this case would likely be remanded an additional time because the October 2021 VA medical opinion failed to address the issue of aggravation in the medical opinion rendered. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). After careful review of the evidence in the file, the Board finds that the evidence is approximately balanced, and that granting service connection is warranted. In sum, the appeal for service connection for a dental condition is granted. J. LEE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Williams, Associate 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.