Citation Nr: A25058167 Decision Date: 07/08/25 Archive Date: 07/08/25 DOCKET NO. 221213-307148 DATE: July 8, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his right shoulder disability is at least as likely as not related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing service connection for a right shoulder disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1983 to February 1984 and from January 1985 to April 1989. ? This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2021 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The decision was issued on December 14, 2021. In response to the December 2021 rating decision, in December 2022, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) and elected the Evidence Submission docket. Under the Evidence Submission docket, the Board considers the claim based on evidence of record at the time of the rating decision, and evidence received within 90 days following receipt of the NOD. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. As such, the Board's current review is limited to the evidence of record at the time of the issuance of the December 2021 rating decision as well as any evidence received within 90 days following receipt of the December 13, 2022 VA Form 10182. Id. Service Connection Service connection for a right shoulder disability is granted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an 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 disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). ? If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) apply only for the specific chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a)). Moreover, where a veteran served continuously for 90 days or more during active service, and arthritis becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively favors one side or another. 38?C.F.R. § 4.3. When there is an approximate or nearly equal balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the Veteran and the claim will be granted on the merits. 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b). When the evidence persuasively favors against the claim of the Veteran, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable, and the claim will be denied on its merits. 38?U.S.C. §?5107; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). As an initial matter, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of right shoulder pain as shown on August 2018 VA treatment records as well as diagnoses of a high-grade partial tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon and subcortical cyst in the greater tuberosity of the humerus as shown on the December 2022 private evaluation. Thus, the first element of service connection is met. Shedden, 381 F.3d 1163. The Veteran's service treatment records are silent as to any complaints of, treatment for, or diagnoses referencing a right shoulder disability. However, the Veteran submitted a statement in December 2022 in which he stated that he entered and graduated basic training in 1983. He stated he later attended and graduated military police school and later switched from a Reservist to being an active-duty Soldier. The Veteran also stated that while in basic training, he had weapons training with an M-16 and whenever he had weapons training with the M-16, he would have great difficulty in getting to sleep that night due to his right shoulder being so sore. He stated that after a couple of days, his shoulder seemed fine, and he did not worry about it. He stated that he assumed that everyone else in the barracks had the same problem and they all had a sore shoulder. In addition, he stated that when he finished basic training and left active duty, he could feel something was different in his right shoulder, but it was not painful at all. He stated that his right shoulder just felt different than his left shoulder. The Veteran also stated that he later attended annual individual training (AIT) and became both a military police officer and trained as a correctional officer, and when he was on active duty in the Army, he worked as a military police officer and also a computer machine operator. Moreover, he stated that other than basic training, he had almost no practice or experience at firing an M-16. He stated he did have a discussion with a fellow soldier at some point and figured out that the reason he had such extreme soreness in his shoulder was due to not placing the butt of the weapon tight against his shoulder. Instead, he stated that when he fired the weapon in basic training, the butt of the weapon would recoil back and hit his shoulder. The Veteran further stated that because the primary nights that he had shoulder pain were right after firing the weapon, he was sure that was what caused the injury. The Veteran further stated that over the years, he has always noticed his right shoulder felt different but was not painful, so he did not worry about it. He stated that occasionally, he could feel discomfort while lying on his right side so he would lay on his left side. In December 2022, the Veteran submitted a private evaluation from A.D., a chiropractor. The provider stated that he treated the Veteran from September 2021 through March 2022, and the Veteran reported having right shoulder pain when he was in basic training. The provider stated that upon evaluation of the Veteran's shoulder, he did have point tenderness over the supraspinatus and the front ? shoulder capsule, painful range of motion with abduction, and external rotation, as well as feeling slightly weak in the shoulder. He stated that after consulting with the Veteran along with the symptoms he presented, it was evidence that more information/advanced imaging was going to be needed to fully diagnose his shoulder problem. The provider also stated he advised the Veteran to get an MRI of the right shoulder, and the August 2022 MRI revealed a high-grade partial tear of the distal supraspinatus tendon. The provider stated that after reviewing the MRI, there was a subcortical cyst in the greater tuberosity of the humerus. He stated that it has been suggested that subcortical cysts in the greater tuberosity can be linked and caused by supraspinatus tendon tears. He added that this subcortical cyst visible on the MRI indicates that the Veteran's shoulder had been injured a long time ago, which was consistent with his injury happening at basic training in the 1980s. He stated that the specific injury that occurred is not obvious to be caused by the butt of a weapon, but it does match what one would expect. Further, the provider stated that in reviewing his occupations since 1983, the Veteran worked at a desk job as a computer programmer for over 10 years and an accountant for over 20 years. The provider concluded that based on the Veteran's job history as well as the subcortical cyst in the greater tuberosity, finding from the examination and review of the MRI, he believed the Veteran's injury occurred during basic training. The provider stated that although it was helpful for the Veteran to describe what he thought happened, it was the evidence presented that formed his professional opinion as to when the Veteran's injury occurred. Upon review, the Board finds that there is a competent and probative medical opinion in favor of the claim for service connection. In such instance, the law is clear. Pursuant to the "benefit of the doubt" rule, where there is "an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter," the Veteran shall prevail upon the issue. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch, 21 F.4th at 781. The Board finds that in this case the evidence reaches the level of (at least) approximate or nearly equal balance as to the claim at issue. Accordingly, after resolving doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for a right shoulder disability is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). S. CHARLES NEILL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Medina 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.