BENIGN NEOPLASMS OF THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Air Force from December 1980 to December 2010, appeals the denial of service connection for hyperlipidemia, periodontal disease, and fibrocystic breast disease, while seeking service connection for colon polyps and right foot plantar fasciitis. The Board found sufficient evidence to grant service connection for colon polyps, noting the Court's reversal of a prior Board finding that the Veteran did not have a current disability. The Board invoked the approximate balance standard, citing in-service treatment for polyps and the Veteran's competent testimony about ongoing treatment and functional impairment, thus conceding a nexus. For right foot plantar fasciitis, the Board also invoked the approximate balance standard and benefit of the doubt, granting service connection. This was based on in-service treatment, the Veteran's continued use of orthotics to prevent symptoms, and the Board's determination that this met the generous standard for a current qualifying disability and nexus, despite a prior VA examination being deemed inadequate. Service connection for hyperlipidemia was denied, as it is considered a laboratory finding without functional impairment. Periodontal disease was denied for compensation purposes, as applicable law only allows it for treatment eligibility, and the Veteran did not meet criteria for treatment. Fibrocystic breast disease was denied due to lack of current disability or objective functional impairment, with the Board affording greater weight to medical evidence finding the Veteran's breasts normal.

Rationale

Current disability established by Court reversal; In-service treatment documented; Approximate balance standard invoked; Benefit of the doubt conceded nexus

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26001002
Decision Date: 01/28/26	Archive Date: 01/28/26

DOCKET NO. 16-13 762
DATE: January 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for colon polyps is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for right foot plantar fasciitis is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for hyperlipidemia is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for periodontal disease is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for fibrocystic breast disease is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's colon polyps began during or are causally related to active military service.

2. The Veteran's right foot plantar fasciitis began during or is causally related to active military service.

3. Hyperlipidemia is a laboratory finding and is not a disability with functional impairment of earning capacity during or proximate to the appeal period.

4. Periodontal disease is not a disability capable of service connection for VA compensation purposes; and, the Veteran is not eligible for VA dental treatment.

5. The Veteran does not have a current disability of fibrocystic breast disease and has not had one at any time during or proximate to the appeal period.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for colon polyps have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right foot plantar fasciitis have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hyperlipidemia have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for periodontal disease have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1712, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.381.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for fibrocystic breast disease have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from December 1980 to December 2010.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a hearing in March 2023.  A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file.

?

In July 2023, the Board issued a decision which, among other things, denied service connection for right foot plantar fasciitis and colon polyps and dismissed claims of service connection for hyperlipidemia; periodontal disease with gum recession (also claimed as teeth shifting); and fibrocystic breast disease after finding that the Veteran had withdrawn those issues.  The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court).

The Board issued a correction in January 2025.  The July 2023 decision was amended to correct the spelling of the Veteran's name throughout the document.

In February 2025, the Court issued a memorandum decision reversing the Board's findings that the Veteran did not have a current disability of colon polyps and that the duty-to-assist had been satisfied for right foot plantar fasciitis.  The Court set aside the Board's decision that the Veteran had validly withdrawn her claims of service connection for hyperlipidemia; periodontal disease with gum recession (also claimed as teeth shifting); and fibrocystic breast disease.  The matters have now been returned to the Board for further appellate review and consideration.

After sympathetic consideration of the entire appellate record, including the Court's memorandum decision and the parties' briefs, the Board finds that there is sufficient evidence under the approximate balance standard to grant service connection for colon polyps and right foot plantar fasciitis.  No further discussion of the duty-to-assist is needed for those claims. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(2).

The Board sent the Veteran a letter asking her to clarify her intent regarding her withdrawal of the remaining claims on September 30, 2025.  Specifically, the
 gum recession (also claimed as teeth shifting); and fibrocystic breast disease.  The matters have now been returned to the Board for further appellate review and consideration.

After sympathetic consideration of the entire appellate record, including the Court's memorandum decision and the parties' briefs, the Board finds that there is sufficient evidence under the approximate balance standard to grant service connection for colon polyps and right foot plantar fasciitis.  No further discussion of the duty-to-assist is needed for those claims. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a)(2).

The Board sent the Veteran a letter asking her to clarify her intent regarding her withdrawal of the remaining claims on September 30, 2025.  Specifically, the Board noted that the Veteran had made a verbal request to withdraw on October 30, 2023, and asked whether her intent remained the same.  The Board explained that if it did not hear from her within 30 days, it would proceed to review all issues on appeal.  It has now been more than 30 days since the letter was sent.  The Board even waited an additional fourteen days to account for a potential delay in the mail room and scanning and/or uploading process.  No response has been received from the Veteran.  Therefore, undersigned does not find that the Veteran has validly withdrawn her appeals.  

With her lack of response to the September 30, 2025, letter, and the associated finding that her claims for service connection for service connection for hyperlipidemia; periodontal disease with gum recession (also claimed as teeth shifting); and fibrocystic breast disease remained on appeal, the Board next sought clarification on November 19, 2025 as to whether the Veteran wished to have a hearing on those issues.  The Board letter provided an explanation on her options for having a hearing. She was also advised to speak with her representative before making her decision. If she wanted to have a hearing, the Veteran was instructed to identify the type of hearing by completing and submitting an attached form within 30 days from the date of the letter.  If a response was not received within 30 days from the date of the letter, i.e., December 19, 2025, the Board indicated that it would assume that she did not want a hearing, and that a decision would be made on her your appeal without a hearing.  To date, the Veteran has not responded.  Her request for a hearing on the issues of service connection for hyperlipidemia; periodontal disease with gum recession (also claimed as teeth shifting); and fibrocystic breast disease is deemed withdrawn.  

Neither the Veteran nor her representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record.  See Doucette v. Shulkin, 38 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record).  The Board will proceed with a final decision.

Service Connection - Legal Criteria

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred coincident with or aggravated by service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).  Establishing direct service connection generally requires competent evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

?

Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc); see also Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (invalidating the requirement of "proximate cause" and instead held a "but for" causation or aggravation is enough to show entitlement to secondary service connection).

Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38
1995) (en banc); see also Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (invalidating the requirement of "proximate cause" and instead held a "but for" causation or aggravation is enough to show entitlement to secondary service connection).

Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a VA compensation claim.  See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 and 1131 as requiring the existence of a present disability cannot be considered arbitrary). In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim.  Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).  The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that the requirement of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or proximate thereto. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that pain causing functional impairment may be considered a disability even in the absence of a diagnosed condition. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, to establish the presence of a disability, a veteran will need to show that his pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity. Id.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the claimant.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).  An approximate balance of the evidence includes but is not limited to equipoise.  Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2021).  Evidence is not in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal" when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other.  Id.

Service Connection - Colon Polyps

The Veteran seeks service connection for colon polyps.  She asserts that her disease began during active service and continued to the present.

The Court reversed the Board's finding that the Veteran did not have a current disability related to colon polyps.  See CAVC Decision, February 2025 (p.64).  This means that the current disability element is established.  The remaining elements of service connection are an in-service occurrence and a nexus.

The Veteran was seen for colon polyps during active duty.  Medical records from April 2007 show that she was seen for a colon biopsy on March 19, 2007.  See STR-Medical Photocopy, February 2012 (p.71).  The biopsy report showed an "adenomatous polyp that is not cancer but carries a long-term risk of becoming cancer."  The clinician recommended a repeat colonoscopy within three years.  

This leaves the question of a nexus. At the VA examination in July 2011, the VA examiner noted that the Veteran was diagnosed with colon polyps in 2007.  See VA examination, July 2011 (p.20).  The examiner stated that, per the Veteran, the diagnosis was made on routine colonoscopy.  Two polyps were identified and removed.  The Veteran stated that she had a repeat colonoscopy in 3 years, and that there was no recurrence.  The examiner described the condition as stable.

The Veteran testified before the Board during a hearing in March 2023.  She stated, among other things, that she has a colonoscopy every five years because of the polyps and that the clinicians must go in and remove the polyps when this occurs.  The representative explained that treating clinicians have told the Veteran that the
 polyps in 2007.  See VA examination, July 2011 (p.20).  The examiner stated that, per the Veteran, the diagnosis was made on routine colonoscopy.  Two polyps were identified and removed.  The Veteran stated that she had a repeat colonoscopy in 3 years, and that there was no recurrence.  The examiner described the condition as stable.

The Veteran testified before the Board during a hearing in March 2023.  She stated, among other things, that she has a colonoscopy every five years because of the polyps and that the clinicians must go in and remove the polyps when this occurs.  The representative explained that treating clinicians have told the Veteran that the polyps have a high chance of becoming cancer, which is causing her distress.  The Veteran endorsed functional impairment including recovery from the surgery and some bleeding.  She said that her most recent colonoscopy was the previous summer - summer of 2022.

The evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's colon polyps and active service.  It is undisputed that she was treated for colon polyps during active service in March 2007.  The clinician noted that the Veteran's condition had a long-term risk of becoming cancer.  The Veteran has competently testified that she continues to have colonoscopies to monitor and treat the polyps on a periodic basis.  The procedures result in bleeding and a period of recovery.  This is competent evidence of continuity of symptoms (bleeding and recovery period) arising from a disease or condition (colon polyps) that began during active service (noticed in March 2007).  The Board does not see an explicit basis to question the credibility of these reports.  The Board will invoke the approximate balance standard and concede a nexus.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).    

The parties agreed that there are outstanding medical records relevant to the issue of service connection for colon polyps, including from Southern Gastroenterology.  See CAVC Decision, February 2025 (p.43).  However, if the maximum benefit under law may be granted, it serves no purpose to remand this claim.  The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) will issue a rating decision implementing the grant at a later date.  If the Veteran wishes to challenge the initial rating assigned for colon polyps by filing a supplemental claim application or appeal to the Board, she remains free to submit such medical records at that time, or provide VA with authorization to obtain them on her behalf.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b). 

In summary, the evidence is at least in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's colon polyps began during active service and continued to the present.  The benefit-of-the-doubt standard is invoked.  The claim is granted.

Service Connection - Right Foot Plantar Fasciitis

The Veteran seeks service connection for right foot plantar fasciitis.  She asserts that her disease began during active duty and continued to the present.

According to the Mayo Clinic, plantar fasciitis (PLAN-tur fas-e-I-tis) is one of the most common causes of heel pain. It involves inflammation of a thick band of tissue that runs across the bottom of each foot and connects the heel bone to the toes, known as the plantar fascia. Plantar fasciitis commonly causes stabbing pain that often occurs with the first steps in the morning. The pain normally decreases over time as the muscle stretches from walking, but it might return after long periods of standing or when transitioning from sitting to standing.  See Plantar Fasciitis, Mayo Clinic, https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/plantar-fasciitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20354846 (last accessed January 22, 2026).

The Veteran was seen for plantar fasciitis during active service.  In December 2008, she endorsed foot pain in the sole with every step without a history of trauma.  An exam revealed, among other things, point tenderness to the medial aspect of her sole.  A clinician assessed plantar fasciitis, recommended that the Veteran stretch daily using a frozen water bottle, and pick up some arch support orthotics.  See STR-Medical Photocopy, February 2012 (p.42).  

The Veteran reported that she was having continued pain and requested a podiatry referral in January 2009.  Id. at 35.  She was granted a podiatry referral through the composite health care system (CHCS).  The podiatrist prescribed orthotic devices.  In June 2009, the Veteran's plantar fasciitis was described as "completely resolved".  Id
 among other things, point tenderness to the medial aspect of her sole.  A clinician assessed plantar fasciitis, recommended that the Veteran stretch daily using a frozen water bottle, and pick up some arch support orthotics.  See STR-Medical Photocopy, February 2012 (p.42).  

The Veteran reported that she was having continued pain and requested a podiatry referral in January 2009.  Id. at 35.  She was granted a podiatry referral through the composite health care system (CHCS).  The podiatrist prescribed orthotic devices.  In June 2009, the Veteran's plantar fasciitis was described as "completely resolved".  Id. at 23.  The Veteran was noted to be wearing orthotics at that time.  

In September 2010, the Veteran was seen for her retirement physical examination.  The clinician listed plantar fasciitis as one of the assessed conditions.  Id. at 11-12. She noted that the Veteran was seen by podiatry in the past, was fitted for orthotics, and wears them faithfully.  The clinician described the condition as asymptomatic. 

The Veteran underwent a VA examination in July 2011.  She said that she was a field training commander and was on her feet in combat boots all the time.  See VA examination, July 2011 (p.12).  She said that she was fitted for arch supports and has not had a recurrence since that time.  The examiner did not identify any pain, swelling, heat, redness, stiffness, or fatigability of the right foot.  Yet, it was noted that the Veteran was using an orthotic insert and a right knee brace with good efficacy.  The clinician said that there are no effects on daily activities, but found "functional limitations of walking" described as "able to walk 1-3 miles". 

?

During the Board hearing, the representative disputed that the Veteran's prescribed orthotics had cured her plantar fasciitis.  He stated as follows:

Her plantar fasciitis was seen in service. She was given inserts. The VA denied service connection because they said that the inserts cured her plantar fasciitis. That is the basis for the denial, which is incorrect. She still has plantar fasciitis. She still uses inserts. Nothing is cleared up, it is just the treatment is effective, so the VA should have service connected this. This is the basis for the denial is totally incorrect.

Accordingly, the first question that the Board must answer is whether there exists a current disability causing functional impairment.  See Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225.

The Veteran testified that she continues to use orthotic devices for right foot plantar fasciitis.  The July 2011 VA examiner noted the use of an orthotic device to good effect.  He said that plantar fasciitis had resolved.  However, if the use of orthotic devices is alleviating the symptoms, the implication is that if they were not being used, the Veteran would have active symptoms of plantar fasciitis.  In other words, if it is only the assistive devices that are preventing the occurrence of symptoms, then the Veteran would have symptoms of a current disability beginning in service that would exist but for the treatment of the disorder.  This seems to meet the generous standard for what constitutes a current qualifying disability.  See Spicer, 61 F.4th at 1364; see also Ingram v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 130, 131 (2025) (holding that "the Board must discount beneficial medication effects when assigning an evaluation").  If the Veteran does not have current compensable symptoms, the AOJ would be free to assign a non-compensable rating.  The Board will resolve reasonable doubt in her favor and concede a current qualifying disability. 

This leaves the question of a nexus.  A claimant is competent to report ongoing foot pain since service as a matter of ordinary observation.  This is not quite what is happening in this case.  The Veteran is instead competently reporting that she continues to use orthotics to prevent symptoms of plantar fasciitis.  Yet, this is still within her capacity as a lay person.  It seems reasonable to concede a nexus based on continuity of treatment just as the Board would for continuity of symptoms.  Essentially, the evidence shows a current disability (plantar fasciitis with orthotics to prevent/alleviate symptoms) that began in service (as noted in December 2008) with continuing treatment up to the present date (continuing use of orthotics to prevent/control symptoms as competently referenced during the Board hearing).  Consistent with the non-adversarial nature of the VA claims process
 what is happening in this case.  The Veteran is instead competently reporting that she continues to use orthotics to prevent symptoms of plantar fasciitis.  Yet, this is still within her capacity as a lay person.  It seems reasonable to concede a nexus based on continuity of treatment just as the Board would for continuity of symptoms.  Essentially, the evidence shows a current disability (plantar fasciitis with orthotics to prevent/alleviate symptoms) that began in service (as noted in December 2008) with continuing treatment up to the present date (continuing use of orthotics to prevent/control symptoms as competently referenced during the Board hearing).  Consistent with the non-adversarial nature of the VA claims process, the Board will resolve reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor and concede a nexus in this case.  

The Court reversed the Board's finding that the duty-to-assist had been satisfied as to right foot plantar fasciitis.  See CAVC Decision, February 2025 (pp.64-65).  The parties agreed that the VA examination in July 2011 was inadequate for a decision because the VA examiner had made conflicting findings as to pain.  However, after sympathetic review, the Board has determined that it is appropriate to invoke the approximate balance standard and grant this appeal.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).  It is not necessary to remand because the claim may be granted to the fullest extent.

In summary, the evidence is at least in approximate balance as to each element of service connection for right foot plantar fasciitis.  The benefit-of-the-doubt standard is invoked.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).  The claim is granted.

Service Connection - Hyperlipidemia

The Veteran has hyperlipidemia, which is defined as "a general term for elevated concentration of any or all of the lipids in the plasma," such as hypercholesterolemia.  Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 891 (32nd Ed. 2012).  Hyperlipidemia represents only a laboratory finding and not an actual disability in and of itself for which VA compensation benefits are payable.  See 61 Fed. Reg. 20440, 20445 (May 7, 1996).

There must be competent evidence of a current disability to support service connection.  An abnormality, such as hyperlipidemia, does not of itself constitute disease or disability.  The fact that the Veteran may have received treatment for hyperlipidemia does not mitigate that finding. The Veteran has also not contended, nor does the record reflect, that the condition results in functional impairment or impairment in earning capacity.  See Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1367-68.  Because hyperlipidemia is not a disease or disability for which service connection may be granted, the claim must be denied.

The Board understands that hyperlipidemia could possibly contribute to a disability (like coronary artery disease or stroke) later in the Veteran's life. However, this is not sufficient to show a current disability causing functional impairment during or proximate to the appeal period.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. at 294.  The Veteran has not asserted, and medical evidence does not show, that her laboratory finding of elevated cholesterol causes her any symptoms that result in functional impairment of earning capacity. 

In summary, hyperlipidemia is not a disability resulting in objective evidence of functional impairment for VA disability compensation purposes.  A necessary element of service connection has not been established.  The claim must be denied.

Service Connection - Periodontal Disease

Treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease are not compensable disabilities and will be considered service-connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for outpatient dental treatment. See 38 U.S.C. § 1712; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.381, 4.150; Simington v. West, 11 Vet. App. 41 (1998). A claim for service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes is also a claim for service connection for treatment purposes. Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302 (1993).

Dental disabilities which may be awarded compensable disability ratings are set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. These disabilities include chronic osteomyelitis or osteoradionecrosis of the maxilla or mandible, loss of the mandible, nonunion or malunion of the mandible, limited temporomandibular motion, loss of the ramus, loss of the condyloid or coronoid processes, loss
ington v. West, 11 Vet. App. 41 (1998). A claim for service connection for a dental disability for compensation purposes is also a claim for service connection for treatment purposes. Mays v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 302 (1993).

Dental disabilities which may be awarded compensable disability ratings are set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 4.150. These disabilities include chronic osteomyelitis or osteoradionecrosis of the maxilla or mandible, loss of the mandible, nonunion or malunion of the mandible, limited temporomandibular motion, loss of the ramus, loss of the condyloid or coronoid processes, loss of the hard palate, loss of teeth due to the loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible and where the lost masticatory surface cannot be restored by suitable prosthesis, when the bone loss is a result of trauma or disease but not the result of periodontal disease. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, Diagnostic Codes 9900-9916.

The Veteran has been diagnosed with generalized mild-moderate periodontal disease with generalized gum recession.  See VA examination, July 22, 2011 (p.3).  Applicable law and regulations are clear that the Veteran's periodontal disease is not a disability capable of service connection.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.381(b).  No VA disability compensation may be paid for the Veteran's periodontal disease.

Dental treatment may be authorized if the claimant falls into one of several enumerated classes. See 38 C.F.R. § 17.161; see also 38 U.S.C. § 1712(b); 38 C.F.R. § 17.93. In this case, the Board does not see that the Veteran falls within any of these specified classes.  Neither she nor her representative has specifically argued or provided evidence otherwise. The Board sees no reasonable basis to grant this claim.  The benefit-of-the-doubt is not invoked.  The claim is denied.

Service Connection - Fibrocystic Breast Disease

This claim must fail for lack of a current disability causing any objective evidence of functional impairment of earning capacity. See Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. at 294; Saunders, 886 F.3d at 1367-68.  The Veteran's retirement exam found no abnormalities of the breast on September 28, 2010.  See STR-Medical-Photocopy, February 28, 2012 (p.11).  The clinician noted that a mammogram was completed in May 2010, and reported as normal.  The Veteran was cleared for retirement.

The Veteran underwent a VA examination on July 14, 2011.  She claimed that she had a false positive mammogram in 2003, but a repeat mammogram was negative. The VA examiner responded "no" when asked whether the Veteran had dominant mass; diffuse modularity; nipple abnormalities; gynecomastia; residuals of surgery; axillary adenopathy; or skin abnormalities.  She described the Veteran's breasts as normal.  This also tends to weigh against a current disability of the breasts.

Lay evidence was considered.  However, the ability to diagnose fibrocystic breast disease and link it to active service requires complex medical knowledge of the internal composition of breast tissue that is outside of ordinary capacity.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  The Board affords greater weight to the competent medical evidence, which found that the Veteran's breasts were normal.  The Veteran has offered no competent evidence that she has a current disability pertaining to the breasts (including fibrocystic breast disease) or has had one at any time during or proximate to the present appeal period.

In summary, the persuasive weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current disability of the breasts (including fibrocystic breast disease).  An essential element of service connection is not met.  The claim is denied. 

 

 

MICHAEL A. HERMAN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Reed, 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. 


 breasts (including fibrocystic breast disease).  An essential element of service connection is not met.  The claim is denied. 

 

 

MICHAEL A. HERMAN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Reed, 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.