Citation Nr: A25035559 Decision Date: 04/17/25 Archive Date: 04/17/25 DOCKET NO. 240718-457376 DATE: April 17, 2025 ORDER Service connection for a left ankle disorder, including ligament tear residuals, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that a left ankle disorder began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left ankle disorder 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 in the Army with honorable service for VA purposes from January 1986 to May 1989, with additional dishonorable service for VA purposes, ineligible for benefits from May 1989 to May 1991. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2023 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran elected the Direct Review docket in the July 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement). Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2023 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. The Board cannot consider any evidence submitted after the August 2023 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any submitted evidence that the Board could not, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. The record demonstrates that the criteria for service connection for a left ankle disorder are not met. The Veteran contends that while he sprained his left ankle in July 1991, the ankle was "compromised" due to extensive running and standing during his honorable service period ending in May 1989. 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). All service treatment records throughout the Veteran's service periods are silent regarding any left ankle issues, complaints, treatment, or diagnoses. Despite records reflecting the Veteran sought treatment for various minor conditions (e.g., finger jams, ingrown hairs, common cold), there is no notation of an ankle injury or complaints. The earliest documented complaint of left ankle problems in the record dates to approximately June 2019, nearly three decades after the Veteran's separation from the honorable period of service in May 1989. The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms (e.g., pain, instability). However, the complex question of whether any current left ankle pathology is etiologically related to events during his honorable service often requires medical expertise, particularly where no in-service documentation exists and the onset of post-service treatment is decades later. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the Veteran's assertion that a July 1991 ankle sprain was the culmination of an ankle already "compromised" from the rigors of his honorable service. The Veteran's assertion is relevant, but the Board must assess credibility and consistency with other evidence. Service treatment records even through 1991, although otherwise showing multiple visits for other ailments, are silent on any ankle complaints. While the absence of contemporaneous records does not automatically render the Veteran's recollection incredible, the fact he sought care for relatively minor issues but never mentioned left ankle problems weighs against the presence of a chronic, ongoing ankle condition during that period. The first documented complaint of left ankle issues in the claims file was in June 2019. The significant gap, nearly thirty years, between separation from the honorable service period in May 1989 and the earliest ankle complaint in the record diminishes the likelihood of continuity of symptomatology. The Board notes the Veteran's statement about a 1991 sprain, but that incident clearly occurred during a dishonorable service period, which does not qualify for VA benefits. Beyond the Veteran's own assertions, the record does not contain a medical opinion linking the current ankle complaints to the honorable service period. Furthermore, there is no lay evidence, such as buddy statements from fellow service members, corroborating an in-service ankle injury or chronic ankle disorder symptom dating back to 1986 through 1989. Considering all of the evidence above, the Board affords more probative weight to the lack of any mention of ankle trouble in the service treatment records, the Veteran's many documented in-service treatments for minor ailments (with no ankle complaint), and the decades-long gap between service and the earliest ankle-related complaint. Accordingly, while the Veteran is competent to testify as to pain or instability, his statements of an in-service, pre-May 1989 ankle injury leading to a chronic condition lack persuasive corroboration. The record contains no medical or lay evidence concerning the likelihood that a left ankle disorder is related to an in-service disease or injury, and the evidence of record does not warrant one. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). VA has a duty to provide an examination when the record lacks evidence to decide the Veteran's claim, and there is evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) an in-service event, injury, or disease, and (3) some indication that the claimed disability may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease. Id.; see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). There is no documented in-service ankle injury during the honorable period ending in May 1989, and the Veteran's only specific reference to a sprain concerns July 1991, outside his honorable period of service. The record, accordingly, has not triggered the duty to provide an examination because the second and third McLendon criteria of in-service injury and a plausible indication of nexus are not met. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (explaining that something more than a Veteran's conclusory, generalized statement is needed to trigger VA's duty to assist by providing a medical nexus examination). The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that his left ankle was compromised in service, culminating in a later sprain in July 1991. However, because that sprain occurred during a dishonorable period of service, it cannot serve as the basis for service connection. Further, there is no competent and credible evidence tying any current ankle pathology to any period of service, let alone his honorable period from January 1986 to May 1989. The weight of the evidence is against finding a nexus, and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not ? apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). The claim is denied. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Costa, Stephanie D. 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.