Citation Nr: A26041016 Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26 DOCKET NO. 250715-565114 DATE: April 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right ankle strain is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right foot condition is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of right ankle strain that is not related to event, injury, or disease in active service. 2. Competent medical evidence does not establish that the Veteran has a diagnosed right foot condition. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right ankle strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right foot condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from October 1998 to December 2004. In the July 2025 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 November 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 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 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. 1. Entitlement to service connection for right ankle strain The Veteran contends that he injured his right ankle in service, and the residuals persist to the present. After a thorough review of the evidence, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for right ankle strain is not warranted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be warranted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A veteran is competent to describe symptoms that he experienced in service or at any time after service when he or she perceives or experiences symptoms directly through the senses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, at 469-71 (1994). The Board must consider the competency of the lay evidence and cannot outright reject such evidence on the basis that such evidence is insufficient to establish a medical diagnosis or nexus. Lay evidence may be sufficient to identify a medical diagnosis in those cases where the lay person is competent and identifying a medical diagnosis does not otherwise require specialized medical training and expertise to do so, i.e., the Board must determine whether the claimed disability is a type of disability for which a layperson is competent to provide etiology or nexus evidence. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Board notes that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability benefits. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, in the absence of current disability, there can be no valid claim. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Veteran's service treatment records do not show diagnosis of a right ankle condition during service. The Veteran attended a VA examination in August 2024. The examiner diagnosed right ankle strain. The Veteran reported that during service in 2003, he heard a "pop" in the right ankle and took over-the-counter medication as instructed by a paramedic. The examiner opined that the Veteran's right ankle condition was not at least as likely as not related to active service, noting that the medical evidence of record reflected the Veteran did not seek assistance with this condition until May 2024, the time of the claim, which was 20 years post service, nor did the service records indicate right ankle injury. The examiner noted that as part of the examination, they performed an X-ray of the right ankle, which was negative for past fracture, arthritis, or abnormality. The Board finds this examiner's opinion probative as it is based on a thorough review of the Veteran's medical history, a personal examination of the Veteran, and provides a supported rationale. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's lay statements on the history of the right ankle condition; however, as a lay person, and lacking contemporaneous medical evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran's reports are not competent to support the etiology of a right ankle sprain as related to service. The Board concludes that, as the evidence is persuasively against a grant of service connection for a right ankle condition, it is not in approximate balance, and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 2. Entitlement to service connection for right foot condition The Veteran contends that he developed a right foot condition during service when something "snapped" and that it worsened over time. After a thorough review of the evidence, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for right foot condition is not warranted. The Board notes that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability benefits. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, in the absence of current disability, there can be no valid claim. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Veteran's service treatment records do not show diagnosis or injury of the right foot. The Veteran's medical treatment records do not show a diagnosed right foot condition. However, the Board notes that a lack of a formal diagnosis is not dispositive. The term "disability" as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability." See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Board finds the available medical evidence of record does not show any right foot condition that has impaired the Veteran's ability to perform occupational tasks, and the Veteran has not proffered any lay statements as to functional impairment caused by a right foot condition. Thus, the Veteran's claimed right foot condition has not demonstrated functional impairment of earning capacity. Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1368. The Veteran was not provided with a right foot VA examination. Under the duty to assist, a medical examination or medical opinion is considered necessary if the information and evidence of record does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim, but (1) contains competent medical evidence of a currently diagnosed disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) establishes that the Veteran suffered an event, injury, or disease in service; and (3) indicates that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with an established event, injury or disease in service or with another service-connected disability. McLendon v. Nicholson; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The record does not show a competent diagnosis for right foot condition, nor a relevant injury in service, and the Veteran's contentions that he has a right foot problem stemming from an injury in service are acknowledged, but not competent medical evidence of diagnosis or etiology. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, at 469-71 (1994). The test of McLendon is not met, as it was not error for the regional office to not schedule the Veteran for a VA examination, and under the rules of the modernized review system, the Board cannot remand the claim. McLendon, 20 Vet. App at 81, 83. Accordingly, the evidence of record does not show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a right foot condition for the purposes of VA compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1110. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Thus, the Veteran's claim for service connection is denied. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Miller, Erin (BVA) 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.