Citation Nr: 22019729 Decision Date: 04/02/22 Archive Date: 04/02/22 DOCKET NO. 19-05 763A DATE: April 2, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for left knee arthritis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for right knee arthritis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1996 to March 2000 and December 2003 to March 2005. These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The issues are remanded The VA received these claims for service connection in May 2016. The Veteran contends that he injured his knees during service while jumping in and out of vehicles carrying heavy equipment and carrying heavy weights on his back during marches. He stated at his Board hearing he did not go to sick hall because there was a stigma of being a "sick hall ranger." A February 2005 inservice medical record indicates the Veteran stated that his right knee would hurt when he bent it for a long time. This medical record is consistent with the Veteran's testimony. Additionally, prior to his last active duty tour, there is a June 2001 reserve record that indicates the Veteran was experiencing cracking and popping in his bilateral knees. While the Veteran has undergone a VA examination for this claim in January 2019, the Board does not find that opinion is adequate. Though the Veteran's statements of medical history are noted in the opinion, they are not addressed in the rationale. The examiner relied on the Veteran's inservice medical records being silent for any knee disorder inservice but service connection is not precluded when a disorder is not diagnosed in service. Moreover, there is, as discussed, a February 2005 active duty medical record where the Veteran reported knee pain. The opinion focused solely on whether the Veteran had a knee disorder which was based on service in Southwest Asia due to hazardous exposure. It does not appear that the VA examiner provided an opinion as to direct service connection for the knees. Based on this evidence, the Board finds that a remand is needed to obtain an addendum opinion that addresses the Veteran's statements regarding the wear and tear of jumping in and out of vehicles and undergoing strenuous activities with a lot of weight on his back and the inservice medical records. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. In remanding this case, the Board makes no credibility determination, expressed or implied, at this juncture. 2. Obtain service personnel records that may detail periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA around June 2001. In particular, any information showing whether the Veteran served on ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA in June 2001, when he reportedly complained of his knees popping, would be helpful. 3. Obtain an addendum medical opinion from a medical professional with appropriate expertise. The examiner should review the Veteran's claims file. If the examiner determines that an opinion cannot be provided without an examination, the Veteran should be scheduled for one. Based on a review of the record, and a new examination if necessary, the examiner must address the following: (a.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's left knee arthritis is related to his active service or is caused by or aggravated by military service? (b.) Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's right knee arthritis is related to his active service or is caused by or aggravated by military service? The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean within the realm of medical possibility, but rather that the medical evidence both for and against a certain conclusion is so evenly divided that it is as medically sound to find in favor of such a conclusion as it is to find against it. In all opinions rendered, the examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms he experienced in service and his symptoms of knee injury from in-service to the present. His reports should be considered and discussed in the opinion. The examiner must specifically consider and discuss the Veteran's medical records from February 2005 and June 2001; and his testimony that he injured his knee by bending it a lot, undergoing strenuous activities, and carrying heavy things of his back during service. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. A complete rationale for all medical opinions is required. The examiner should identify and explain the relevance or significance, as appropriate, of any history, clinical findings, medical knowledge or literature, etc., relied upon in reaching the conclusion(s). If the medical professional cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation for why an opinion cannot be rendered. In so doing, the medical professional shall explain whether the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, or that he or she has exhausted the limits of current medical knowledge in providing an answer to that particular question(s). G. A. WASIK Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Wade 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.