DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

KRISTY L. ZADORA · 2026 · Case ID: 26001792

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from August 1978 to February 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for a cervical spine disorder, claimed as secondary to service-connected mechanical low back strain with degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome, and/or left shoulder degenerative changes with rotator cuff tendonitis. The Board reviewed the evidence, including multiple VA etiology opinions. The service treatment records were negative for cervical spine complaints, and the discharge examination showed a normal spine. The first objective evidence of cervical arthritis appeared over 20 years after service, precluding presumptive service connection or continuity of symptomatology. The Board weighed conflicting VA medical opinions, ultimately affording probative weight to a May 2022 opinion and a May 2024 opinion. The May 2022 examiner found the condition less likely than not related to service, noting age-related degenerative changes and a lack of in-service complaints or findings. The May 2024 examiner also concluded the condition was less likely than not incurred due to service, citing silent service records, negative discharge examination findings, and unremarkable post-service imaging in 2001, with significant degenerative changes appearing over 20 years post-service. This examiner also found the cervical spine disorder was not aggravated beyond its natural progression by the service-connected lumbar spine or shoulder conditions, explaining that these conditions affect different spinal regions and have separate etiologies. The Board found these opinions adequate and persuasive, concluding the evidence did not establish a nexus to service or aggravation by service-connected conditions. The Veteran's lay testimony regarding an in-service football injury was noted but found insufficient to establish nexus given the significant time gap and lack of in-service complaints. Therefore, service connection for the cervical spine disorder was denied.

Rationale

Service treatment records were negative for cervical spine complaints.; Discharge examination found spine normal; first objective evidence of arthritis over 20 years post-service.; VA opinions found condition less likely than not related to service or aggravated by service-connected conditions.; Lay testimony regarding in-service football injury insufficient to establish nexus due to time gap and lack of in-service complaints.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

14-42 724

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26001792
Decision Date: 02/09/26 Archive Date: 02/09/26

DOCKET NO. 14-42 724
DATE: February 9, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to service connected mechanical low back strain with degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome and/or left shoulder degenerative changes with rotator cuff tendonitis, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's cervical spine disorder was not manifested in service, is not shown to be related his service, arthritis did not have its onset within one year of service discharge and is not shown caused or aggravated by his service-connected mechanical low back strain with degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome and/or left shoulder degenerative changes with rotator cuff tendonitis.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to service connected mechanical low back strain with degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome and/or left shoulder degenerative changes with rotator cuff tendonitis, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1978 to February 1991.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In November 2016, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the record. The Board notes that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the November 2016 has retired and is no longer employed by the Board.

The issue on appeal was previously remanded by the Board to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in May 2018, November 2021 and February 2023 for additional development.

In an August 2022 letter, the Veteran was informed that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the November 2016 hearing was no longer employed by the Board, was given the opportunity to request another hearing and was notified that if he did not provide a response in 30 days, it would be assumed that he did not want another hearing. The Veteran did not respond to the August 2022 letter and the Board will therefore proceed with its adjudication.

This case was most recently before the Board in April 2024, at which time the appeal was once again remanded to the AOJ for further development. Specifically, the Board directed the AOJ to obtain outstanding treatment records and to obtain etiology opinions. Updated VA treatment records have been associated with the claims file and VA etiology opinions were obtained in May 2024. Following the requested development, another Supplemental Statement of the Case was issued in November 2024. The Board therefore determines that there has been substantial compliance with its previous remand.

In the April 2024 decision, the Board also remanded the issue of entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disability. In a November 2024 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for a left ankle sprain and assigned an initial 10 percent rating effective July 25, 2011. As this decision represents a full grant of the benefits sought with respect to this claim for service connection, such issue is no longer before the Board for consideration. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1977).

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may 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). Service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of 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).

In addition,
3.303(a). Service connection may 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). Service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of 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).

In addition, the law provides that, where a veteran served ninety days or more of qualifying service and arthritis becomes manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the 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. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. While the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumption period, it must be shown, by acceptable lay or medical evidence, that there were characteristic manifestations of the disease to the required degree during that time. Id.

Alternatively, when a disease at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) is not shown to be chronic during service or the one-year presumptive period, service connection may also be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). However, the use of continuity of symptoms to establish service connection is limited only to those diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) and does not apply to other disabilities which might be considered chronic from a medical standpoint. See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). VA has amended 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 to explicitly incorporate the holding in Allen, except that it will not concede aggravation unless a baseline for the claimed disability can be established with evidence created prior to any aggravation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b).

The veteran can provide competent reports of factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, such as experiencing pain in service, reporting to sick call, being placed on limited duty, and undergoing physical therapy. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a lay person is competent to identify the medical condition (noting that sometimes the lay person will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer), (2) the lay person is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Similarly, laypersons are competent to diagnose and provide nexus opinions to some extent, notably where the diagnosis or opinion is not of a complex nature. Id., See also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

When there is an approximate 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 claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, including as secondary to service connected mechanical low back strain with degenerative arthritis and inter
See also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disorder, including as secondary to service connected mechanical low back strain with degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome and/or left shoulder degenerative changes with rotator cuff tendonitis, is denied.

The Veteran essentially contends that he has a cervical spine disorder that developed as a result of his military service. Alternatively, it is argued that the Veteran's cervical spine disorder developed as a result of the arthritis in his lumbar spine and/or his left shoulder. See July 2011 Veteran's Supplemental Claim for Compensation (VA Form 21-526b); and November 2016 hearing transcript.

The service treatment records are negative for complaints, treatments or diagnosis related to a cervical spine disorder. A November 1989 discharge examination found the Veteran's spine to be normal. In a November 1989 Report of Medical History, the Veteran indicated that he did not have now and has never had swollen or painful joints, a bone, joint or deformity and arthritis or rheumatism. The Veteran also denied that he ever had any illness or injury other than those already noted.

The Board has first considered whether service connection for arthritis is warranted on a presumptive basis, to include on the basis of continuity of symptomatology. In this regard, the clinical evidence of record fails to show that the Veteran manifested such disease to a compensable degree within the year following his discharge from active duty service. The first objective evidence of arthritis of the cervical spine was not until 2011, more than 20 years after the Veteran's discharge from active service. Therefore, the Board finds that presumptive service connection for arthritis, to include on the basis of continuity of symptomatology, is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Moreover, the gap in time of between the service and the first medical evidence of a diagnosis of arthritis is in itself significant and it weighs against the Veteran's claim. See Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (evidence of a prolonged period without medical complaint can be considered in service connection claims).

Turning to the question of whether there is an etiological relationship between the Veteran's service and claimed cervical spine disorder, the Board notes that the record contains two etiology opinions which must be considered and weighed. See Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 69-70 (1993). When faced with conflicting medical opinions, the Board may favor one medical opinion over the other. See Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 30 (1998). The Board will consider each of these opinions below.

A June 2017 VA examiner made a diagnosis of cervical degeneration, cervical spinal stenosis, and cervical radiculopathy and noted that the Veteran has an old shoulder that complicates his neck problem. The examiner further noted that the Veteran has neck/shoulder pain that is severe, that such prevents him doing any manual labor, that such is to the point he will need narcotics and he can't work with them on Board. To the extent that this examiner provided an etiology opinion, such been provided without a rationale. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). This opinion is therefore afforded little, if any, probative weight. The Board previously found this opinion to be inadequate in May 2018.

A March 2020 VA examiner confirmed diagnoses of degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine, degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, and left cervical radiculopathy. The VA examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner indicated that there is no evidence in the medical records that the Veteran ever complained about his neck while in the military and that he had no positive findings for his neck, in a November 1989 past health assessment form for a warrant officer exam. Therefore, the examiner opined that it is less likely than not that his neck problem started while in the military as the Veteran was not seen for neck problems until many years after he left the military, at least 15 years or more. The examiner opined that it is not related to anything that occurred while in the military. The examiner noted that private opinions are usually paid for by the examinee, so there is bias in the opinion and that they had no if in the 15 years or so after he got out of the military as to what he did, whether he had a motor vehicle accident, played contact sports, or had a work related injury. The examiner stated that they could not speculate on the cause of the Veteran's neck pain.

The March 2020 VA examiner also opined that the they were unable to determine a baseline of severity of the cervical spine disorder. The examiner noted that the Veteran was not seen for a neck problem well into the 21st century. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's cervical spine disorder was not at least as likely as not aggravated beyond its natural progression by the lumbar spine disorder. The examiner explained that the lumbar spine would not cause either degenerative disc or degenerative joint disease in the cervical spine. The examiner added that the lumbar spine does not put pressure on the neck. The examiner stated that the 2017 medical opinion is not believable as no medical records were discussed, and the 2012 opinion only discusses the left ankle and a finger problem. The Board finds that this opinion is speculative and cursory and that the examiner did not specify a likely etiology. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, supra; Stefl v. Nicholson, supra. In addition, the examiner did not address the December 1988 service treatment record reflecting that the Veteran was seen for head pain after an injury in a football game or his lay statements recounting such event. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993); see also D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 104 (2008). This opinion is therefore afforded little, if any, probative weight. The Board previously found this opinion to be inadequate in November 2021.

An August 2021 VA examiner opined that it is not at least as likely as not that the Veteran's cervical spine disability was caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected left shoulder disability. The examiner noted that there are several factors that can cause discs to degenerate, including age; that is the drying out of the disc. The examiner explained that the most common cause of spinal stenosis is osteoarthritis, the gradual wear and tear that happens to your joints over time. The examiner also explained that spinal stenosis is common because osteoarthritis begins to cause changes in most people's spines by age 50, which is why most people who develop symptoms of spinal stenosis are 50 or older. The examiner noted that the Veteran was in the service for 13 years, with a 20 year different before the abnormal Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan in 2011. The examiner referred to an article included in the opinion which found that aging and regular wear and tear as the most common cause of degenerative disc disease and disc protrusion, without significant back injury with immediate abnormal imaging finding; therefore, the examiner stated that to claim the 13 years of service as the direct cause of degenerative disc disease and protruding would be merely speculation. The examiner further noted that the knowledge that cervical radiculopathy may cause problem of upper extremities (shoulder) functioning is well accepted, not the other way around; therefore, there is no scientific evidence rather than merely speculation that left shoulder issue aggravate the cervical spine issue. This opinion did not address secondary aggravation. See El-Amin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2013). In addition, the examiner did not explain why cervical spine disorder more
disc protrusion, without significant back injury with immediate abnormal imaging finding; therefore, the examiner stated that to claim the 13 years of service as the direct cause of degenerative disc disease and protruding would be merely speculation. The examiner further noted that the knowledge that cervical radiculopathy may cause problem of upper extremities (shoulder) functioning is well accepted, not the other way around; therefore, there is no scientific evidence rather than merely speculation that left shoulder issue aggravate the cervical spine issue. This opinion did not address secondary aggravation. See El-Amin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2013). In addition, the examiner did not explain why cervical spine disorder more likely due to age and/or wear and tear. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, supra; Stefl v. Nicholson, supra. This opinion is therefore afforded little, if any, probative weight. The Board previously found this opinion to be inadequate in November 2021.

A May 2022 VA examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner noted that the entire claims file was reviewed, including lay statements. The examiner noted that the service treatment records were silent for complaints of or evaluation for neck complaints or a cervical spine condition, including a December 1988 emergency note for head pain after the Veteran sustained a head injury while playing football. The examiner noted that there were no neck complaints noted during the emergency room visit and the Veteran was diagnosed with a soft tissue injury of the right zygomatic and right temple region secondary to trauma. The examiner also noted that a November 1989 report of medical history was negative for a cervical spine condition, and report of medical history was negative for neck pain. The examiner noted that post service records within the year following service was negative for complaints; in fact, a December 2001 Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan of the cervical spine was reported to be grossly unremarkable. The examiner noted that while the claims file supports diagnoses of cervical spinal stenosis, degenerative arthritis of the cervical spine with intervertebral disc syndrome and left upper extremity radiculopathy, it is less likely than ot incurred in or caused by an event or injury in service or during service. The examiner stated that the degenerative arthritis is age related, chronic and is due to wear and tear, that the conditions of spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc syndrome and left upper extremity radiculopathy are progressions of the degenerative arthritis and that a nexus is not established. The Board finds that the May 2022 opinion report is adequate as to direct service connection as the examiner reviewed the claims file and discussed relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a thorough supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, supra; Stefl v. Nicholson, supra. This opinion is therefore afforded probative weight.

A March 2023 VA examination confirmed diagnoses of degenerative disc disease, other than intervertebral disc syndrome, and spinal stenosis. The VA examiner opined that the claimed condition is less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service connected condition of low back or left shoulder disability. The examiner indicated he reviewed and researched the service treatment records and the post military medical records. The examiner stated that the medical evidence does not support the neck condition to be secondarily connected to the low back or left shoulder disabilities. The examiner further indicated that he was unable to find any supporting medical literature evidence that made a nexus connecting these two conditions; therefore, a nexus had not been established.

The March 2023 VA examiner also opined that the claimed neck condition was less likely than not aggravated beyond its natural progression by the veteran's service connected condition. The rationale was that the evidence on record does not support the aggravated beyond its normal progression by a service-connected low back disability. The examiner noted that the term "aggravated" means a lasting increase in severity of the underlying disability that is not due to the natural progress of the disease; therefore, an exacerbation of symptoms during service does not constitute aggravation. The examiner also explained that if the disorder becomes worse during service and then improves due to in-service treatment to the point that it was no more disabling than it was at entrance into service, there is no aggravation. There is no nexus to provide evidence of cervical spine being aggravated beyond its normal progression by a service-connected low back or left shoulder disability. This opinion is inadequate to decide the appeal as it is conclusory and simply stated that aggravation was not supported by the evidence without further explanation. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, supra; Stefl v
in severity of the underlying disability that is not due to the natural progress of the disease; therefore, an exacerbation of symptoms during service does not constitute aggravation. The examiner also explained that if the disorder becomes worse during service and then improves due to in-service treatment to the point that it was no more disabling than it was at entrance into service, there is no aggravation. There is no nexus to provide evidence of cervical spine being aggravated beyond its normal progression by a service-connected low back or left shoulder disability. This opinion is inadequate to decide the appeal as it is conclusory and simply stated that aggravation was not supported by the evidence without further explanation. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, supra; Stefl v. Nicholson, supra. This opinion is therefore afforded little, if any probative weight. The Board previously found this opinion to be inadequate in April 2024.

A May 2024 VA examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed inservice injury, event, or illness. The examiner noted that the service treatment records are silent for complaints, diagnosis or treatment of neck complaints while in service. The examiner also noted that a physical examination, dated in November 1989, was negative for a cervical spine condition and/or neck pain complaints. The examiner further noted that a magnetic resonance imaging scan of the cervical spine, dated in December 2001, was noted as grossly unremarkable. The examiner further noted that finding of neck condition found on a 2011 magnetic resonance imaging scan were not documented until 20 years following discharge from service. Therefore, the examiner concluded that a nexus has not been established. The examiner stated that it is less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed inservice injury, event or illness because the Veteran's condition does not appear to be consistent with a continuation of that which was seen during service.

The May 2024 VA examiner also opined that the cervical spine disorder was not at least as likely as not aggravated beyond its natural progression by the Veteran's service connected mechanical low back strain with degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome and degenerative changes with rotator cuff tendonitis of the left shoulder. The examiner explained that degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease are age related conditions related to chronic wear and tear. The examiner explained that degenerative disk disease is when normal changes that take place in the disks of your spine cause pain. The examiner further explained that degenerative disk disease and degenerative arthritis are caused over time by injuries, sports, daily activities, or if a spinal disk dries out and shrinks. The examiner noted that injuries to the neck are unrelated to injuries in the back or the shoulders. The examiner indicated that while cervical spine degenerative arthritis and lumbar spine degenerative arthritis both involve degeneration of the spine, they affect different parts of the spine. The examiner further noted that cervical spine degenerative arthritis affects the cervical spine, which is the portion of the spine located in the neck; he noted that it involves the degeneration of the vertebral discs and facet joints in the cervical region. The examiner explained that lumbar spine degenerative arthritis, on the other hand, affects the lumbar spine, which is the portion of the spine located in the lower back, and it involves the degeneration of the vertebral discs and facet joints in the lumbar region. The examiner stated that while these conditions affect different parts of the spine, they can share similar risk factors, such as age, genetics, and lifestyle factors like obesity or repetitive stress on the spine. The examiner noted that, while unrelated, some individuals may develop degenerative changes in both the cervical and lumbar spine simultaneously due to generalized degenerative changes in the spine associated with aging. The examiner stated that there is no medical or scientific evidence that establishes a relationship between the development or progression of cervical degenerative disc disease and/or arthritis with that of the lumbar spine; additionally, there is no evidence that development or progression of cervical degenerative disc disease and/or arthritis is caused by shoulder conditions to include rotator cuff pathology. Therefore, the examiner found that a nexus is not established.

The Board finds that the May 2024 VA examination to be adequate as to direct and secondary service connection as the examiner reviewed the claims file and discussed relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a thorough supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, supra; Stefl v. Nicholson, supra. This opinion is therefore afforded probative weight. Significantly, the Veteran's representative has not challenged the adequacy of this opinion. There is no contrary probative opinion of record.

To the extent that the Veteran asserts that his cervical spine disorder is attributable to service and/or his service-connected disabilities, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to testify as to his observations. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Furthermore, lay witnesses may, in some circumstances, opine on questions of diagnosis and etiology. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding that the Board's categorical statement that "a valid medical opinion" was required to establish nexus, and that a layperson was "not competent" to provide testimony as to nexus because they were a layperson, conflicts with Jandreau). In the instant case, however, the Board finds that the question regarding the relationship between a current cervical spine disorder and any instance of his military service and/or his service-connected disabilities to be complex in nature. Nothing in the record demonstrates that the Veteran received any special training or acquired any medical expertise in evaluating orthopedic disorders. See King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2012). Here, the most probative etiology evidence are the May 2022 and May 2024 VA etiology opinions.

(Continued on the next page)

Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for a cervical spine disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected mechanical low back strain with degenerative arthritis and intervertebral disc syndrome and/or left shoulder degenerative changes with rotator cuff tendonitis, is not warranted. The appeal is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, supra.

KRISTY L. ZADORA

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Suzie Gaston, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer