Citation Nr: 23043167 Decision Date: 08/04/23 Archive Date: 08/04/23 DOCKET NO. 13-05 738 DATE: August 4, 2023 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had diabetes mellitus type II, at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 27, 1967, to June 26, 1970, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents has been conceded. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2022 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The rating decision on appeal was issued in March 2022 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. The March 2022 rating decision found that new and relevant evidence had been received to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II. This is a favorable finding by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) and the Board will proceed to the address the claim on the merits. See 38?U.S.C. § 5104A; 38?C.F.R. § 3.104(c). In the January 2023 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. In July 2023, he withdrew the hearing request. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal. 38?C.F.R. §?20.302(b). 1. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II The Veteran submitted a statement indicating he was only interested in continuing his appeal for entitlement to service connection for hypertension due to herbicide exposure. The Veteran did not explicitly withdraw his claim for entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The Veteran's VA treatment records do not contain a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus and show that the Veteran's blood sugars and A1C are normal. The Veteran has not reported symptoms of diabetes mellitus. The April 2016 VA examiner indicated there was no evidence of any diabetes mellitus in the Veteran's record except for one elevated blood sugar reading in 2011. Because there is no evidence of diagnosis, treatment, or symptoms of the disability, the claim must be denied. See Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. At 294. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.