Citation Nr: 22045189 Decision Date: 08/09/22 Archive Date: 08/09/22 DOCKET NO. 17-25 128 DATE: August 9, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's current back condition is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for service connection for a back condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army on active duty from July 1969 to July 1972. His service personnel records indicate that he also served for more than 20 years in the U.S. Army National Guard of Massachusetts. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) by way of a May 2014 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for a back condition. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) in April 2015, and a statement of the case (SOC) was issued in August 2016. In September 2016, the Veteran perfected a timely appeal via his submission of a VA Form 9 (substantive appeal). In May 2022, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is attached to the claims file. Service Connection for a Back Condition Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). With chronic disease shown as such in service (or within the presumptive period under § 3.307), so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). To show a chronic disease in service, a combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity is required, as is sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Court has established that 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), applies to only those chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38 U.S.C. § 1101. With respect to the current appeal, that list includes arthritis and an organic disease of the nervous system. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). Service connection may also be granted for a disease first diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Veteran asserts that his current back condition, diagnosed after service, either had its inception as a result of active duty service or during periods of temporary duty travel (TDY). In pertinent part, he contends that his current back disability is the result of his numerous in-service parachute jumps with equipment, rucksack marches, and skiing with combat loads. See e.g., Fully Developed Claim, received September 9, 2013, and May 2022 Hearing Transcript. At the outset, the Board notes that medical records reflect assessments of a current disability, including diagnoses of degenerative disc disease and lumbar spondylosis. Although, the Veteran's STRs contain no complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for a back condition, his military personnel records indicate he was awarded the Parachutist Badge. During the May 2022 Board hearing, he testified that he has had back trouble and pain since service. He reported that he avoids doing any hobbies or strenuous activities for fear of aggravating his back pain. He used to treat his back pain with prescription painkillers, but stopped due to side effects. (Continued on the next page) In support of his claim, in April 2015, the Veteran submitted a favorable medical opinion issued by his private medical doctor, Dr. M.R., who noted the Veteran had "described some of the parajumps {sic} and falls which occurred while he was in the service." Dr. M.R. stated, "It is reasonable to say that these are a factor in the disc disease going on in [the Veteran's] back today." In June 2022, the Veteran also submitted an article from the Army Public Health Center linking injuries to the lower extremities, low back, and head to parachuting activities. See Correspondence, received June 2022. After considering the April 2015 private opinion and the article indicating a relationship between the Veteran's back condition and parachute jumps, the Board finds the evidence is at least in approximate balance and thus resolves all doubt in favor of the Veteran. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Based on the above, service connection for a back condition is warranted. Paulette Vance Burton Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A.N., 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.