Citation Nr: A25041296 Decision Date: 05/06/25 Archive Date: 05/06/25 DOCKET NO. 241029-486316 DATE: May 6, 2025 ORDER The appeal for service connection for cervical degenerative arthritis with degenerative disc disease other than intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) (claimed as neck condition) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's claimed cervical spine disorder is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from June 1991 to August 1992 and from April 1993 to June 1995. In the October 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, 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 claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. 38 U.S.C. § 1112; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 In this case, there is no dispute that requirement for a current diagnosis has been met. In this regard, the February 2024 VA examiner noted diagnoses of degenerative arthritis as well as degenerative disc disease other than intervertebral disc syndrome. Additionally, the Board finds that the requirement for an in-service event have been met. The Veteran asserts that his cervical spine disorder is related to a motor vehicle accident in service as well as carrying heavy backpack on road marches in service. See August 2023 claim form. Service treatment records confirm that the Veteran was involved in a motor vehicle accident in service and that he complained of neck pain at the time. See October 1993 service treatment record. The Board also accepts that the Veteran carried heavy backpacks on road marches in service. Thus, the question before the Board is whether the Veteran's current disorder is related to service. For the reasons explained below, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against the claim. In February 2024, the Veteran was provided with a VA examination to address the neck disorder. During the examination, the Veteran reported onset of neck pain almost 20 years prior to the examination. Following examination of the Veteran and review of the treatment records as well as the Veteran's statements, including statements that the onset of the cervical spine pain was 20 years prior, the examiner determined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's cervical spine disorder was related to service. The examiner cited the Veteran's August 1996 Report of Medical History, in which the Veteran denied any joint pain. The examiner also noted treatment records (see December 2020 VA treatment record) which indicated the Veteran's reports that the current neck pain had been going on for several weeks, rather than continuously since service. The examiner also noted that a February 2021 private MRI was the first radiographic evidence of cervical degenerative joint disease or disc disease. Based on review of all the evidence, the examiner determined that it was less than approximately balanced that the Veteran's neck condition began in or was caused by service. The Board places a high probative value on the February 2024 VA opinion as the examiner considered all the pertinent evidence, to include the Veteran's lay statements. There are no competent opinions in favor of the claim. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against a finding of a relationship between service and the Veteran's neck disorder. The evidence does not indicate that the Veteran had neck pain continuously since service. In this regard, the Veteran himself reported an onset of neck pain 20 years prior to February 2024 VA examination, which would have been in 2004, or eight years following the Veteran's separation from active service. There are no medical opinions of record that support a finding of a relationship between the post-service neck pain and the in-service motor vehicle accident or carrying of heavy backpacks. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that his cervical spine disorder is related to service. Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, etiology of cervical spine disease, falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (lay persons not competent to diagnose cancer). For the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether service connection for a cervical spine disorder is warranted. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38 U.S.C. §5107 (b), is therefore not for application as to this claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). J. NICHOLS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Ebaugh, 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.