KNEE IMPAIRMENT OF

PAUL SORISIO · 2026 · Case ID: 26004679

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Army from July 1958 to December 1958, appeals the denial of service connection for multiple conditions, including bilateral knee conditions, right shoulder residuals, cervical spine issues, lumbar spine issues, headaches secondary to cervical spine, and sciatic nerve condition secondary to lumbar spine. The veteran claims these conditions resulted from an in-service incident in 1958 where he was thrown from the recoil of a 105-howitzer. The Board found the veteran to be a poor historian due to inconsistencies in his statements regarding the incident's timing, location, and the duration of light duty. His lay statements were afforded little to no probative weight. The Board also noted that the veteran is not competent to diagnose complex medical conditions or provide a nexus opinion without medical training. The available service treatment records were destroyed in the 1973 fire, with only a single-day admission for heat exhaustion documented. Post-service professional football and a bus accident were also noted as potential intercurrent causes for his current knee conditions. VA examinations found it less likely than not that the claimed conditions were related to service, citing the significant time gap between the alleged incident and current diagnoses, lack of in-service treatment, and the veteran's poor credibility. Consequently, all claims for service connection were denied.

Rationale

Veteran is a poor historian due to inconsistent statements.; No in-service diagnosis or treatment for knee condition.; Significant time gap (approx. 50 years) between alleged incident and knee replacement.; Post-service factors (football, bus accident) weigh against in-service cause.; VA examiner found less likely than not related to service.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

19-00 930A

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26004679
Decision Date: 04/17/26 Archive Date: 04/17/26

DOCKET NO. 19-00 930A
DATE: April 17, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a right knee condition to include total knee replacement is denied.

Service connection for a left knee condition to include total knee replacement is denied.

Service connection for a right shoulder condition to include residuals is denied.

Service connection for a cervical spine condition is denied.

Service connection for headaches as secondary to a cervical spine condition is denied.

Service connection for a lumbar spine condition to include back surgery is denied.

Service connection for sciatic nerve condition as secondary to a lumbar spine condition is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veterans service treatment records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Archives and Records Administration.

2. The Veteran was provided a Certification of Military Service that showed he served in Active Duty for Training from July 20, 1958 to December 15, 1958.

3. The Veteran's service treatment record (STR) was created from hospital admission cards from 1958 to 1963, which covered his period of active-duty service.

4. The Veteran's STR only showed a one-day admission for heat prostration in July 1958, which led to no disability separation or administrative separation on a medical basis or any duty restriction.

5. The Veteran is a poor historian since his statement and testimony as to being thrown from the recoil of a 105-howitzer during service have been inconsistent regarding the length of time he claimed to be on light duty and with regard to the timeframe he claimed the incident took place, testifying that it took place between September and October 1958 while training in Ft. Chaffee, Arkansas, but in a 1983 Military Questionnaire stated that he was stationed in Ft. Jackson, South Carolina from 1958 to 1959.

6. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that a left knee condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

7. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that a right knee condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

8. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that a right shoulder condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

9. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that a cervical spine condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

10. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that a lumbar spine condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

11. The Veteran's headaches are not secondary to a service-connected disability and is not otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

12. The Veteran's sciatic nerve condition is not secondary to a service-connected disability and is not otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for a right knee condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for a left knee condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for a right shoulder condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for a cervical spine condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for a lumbar spine condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for headaches claimed as due to cervical spine condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

7. The criteria for service connection for a sciatic nerve condition claimed as due to a lumbar spine condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.
condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for headaches claimed as due to cervical spine condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

7. The criteria for service connection for a sciatic nerve condition claimed as due to a lumbar spine condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty for training from July 20, 1958 to December 15, 1958. This period became active-duty service when the Veteran was disabled during that period with respect to his service-connected hearing loss and tinnitus. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c). Accordingly, the Veteran served on active duty from July 1958 to December 1958.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2022, the Veteran appeared before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a virtual hearing. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the file.

This matter was last before the Board in January 2026 when it was remanded for Social Security Records. The Board finds that there was substantial compliance with the prior remand directives since the RO requested those records. Unfortunately, the RO received confirmation that the records were destroyed. See Final Attempt Letter received 1/23/2026. Accordingly, since the Board finds that VA has fulfilled its duty to assist, as will be discussed below, with these claims, the matter is ready for adjudication.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires (1) competent evidence (a medical diagnosis) of current chronic disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) competent evidence that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448-49 (1995) (en banc).

The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed Cir. 2009).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

Heighten Duty to Assist

By way of background, in July 2009, VA made a formal finding that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) were unavailable because his records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Archives and Records Administration. See VA Memo received 7/6/2009. In May 2009, the Veteran was sent a VCAA/DTA Letter telling him that VA was having trouble locating his STRs during his period of service, July 1958 to December 1958. The letter also requested that the Veteran send
of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

Heighten Duty to Assist

By way of background, in July 2009, VA made a formal finding that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) were unavailable because his records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the National Archives and Records Administration. See VA Memo received 7/6/2009. In May 2009, the Veteran was sent a VCAA/DTA Letter telling him that VA was having trouble locating his STRs during his period of service, July 1958 to December 1958. The letter also requested that the Veteran send a copy of his STRs and/or alternative sources that may substitute for his STRs, e.g., medical evidence from hospitals, Buddy affidavits, letters written during service. See VCAA/DTA Letter received 5/11/2009 at page 2.

The Board observes that the National Personnel Records Center did send the Veteran an NA Form 13038 Certification of Military Service. See Third Party Correspondence received 11/25/2014; see also Military Personnel Record received 4/29/2016. Additionally, the Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army, was able to provide information from the Veteran's Hospital Admission Card data files from 1958 to 1963. Those files showed that he was only treated for heat exhaustion and collapse in July 1958. See Military Personnel Record received 11/22/2023 at page 4. Relevant to his claims for benefits, the data showed that he had a non-battle injury, heat exhaustion, that did not result in disability separation nor administrative separation on a medical basis, nor did it result in any duty restrictions. See STR-Medical received 2/02/2009 at page 2.

To assist the Veteran with his claims, the Board remanded these issues multiple times to obtain evidence. Specifically, in November 2022, the matter was remanded to obtain treatment records from Fort Chaffee Hospital in Arkansas where the Veteran asserted he was treated for his claims. Then, in October 2023, the Board remanded to obtain records from his service in the Army Reserves from 1958 to 1979. Next, in July 2025, the Board remanded to obtain competent medical evidence in the form of VA examinations. Lastly, in January 2026, the Board remanded remanded to obtain Social Security Records since the Veteran was involved in a post-service bus accident that resulted in Social Security disability benefits. See Hearing Transcript received 11/01/2019 at page 18.

The attempts to obtain additional evidence to assist the Veteran in his claims were mostly unsuccessful. A response from NPRC search showed no records from Ft. Chaffee Hospital. See Military Personnel Request received 3/25/2024 at page 1. Regarding his reserve records, some records were received, however no additional medical records were in his Reserve file. See Military Personnel Records received 11/27/2023. As noted above, a response from the SSA National Records Center stated that the records from this administrative agency were destroyed. See Medical Treatment Records-furnished by SSA received 1/09/2026 at page 1.

In sum, the Board finds that it has fulfilled its duty to assist the Veteran with evidence in support of his claim since it has attempted to associate with the file medical records that could have provided evidence of in-service onset and incurrence of his claimed conditions. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 363 (2005) (holding that the Board's duty to assist a claimant in developing his claim is heightened in cases in which the appellant's service medical records are lost or destroyed and includes the obligation to search for alternate medical records). Further, the Board finds that VA has fulfilled its duty to assist the Veteran since it advised that his records were lost in the fire and told him of alternative forms of evidence that could assist his claim. See Daye v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 512, 513 (2006) (holding that when VA is unable to locate a claimant's records, it should advise him to submit alternative forms of evidence to support his claim and should assist him in obtaining sufficient evidence from alternative sources). Accordingly, the Board finds that the duty to assist has been fulfilled.

Heightened Duty to Explain

Relatedly, the Board finds that since the Veteran's records were lost in a fire, it has an additional duty to explain its findings through analysis of the credibility and probative value of the evidence that it has, and account of evidence that it finds persuasive and unpersuasive. Daye v. Nicholson, 20
. See Daye v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 512, 513 (2006) (holding that when VA is unable to locate a claimant's records, it should advise him to submit alternative forms of evidence to support his claim and should assist him in obtaining sufficient evidence from alternative sources). Accordingly, the Board finds that the duty to assist has been fulfilled.

Heightened Duty to Explain

Lay Evidence

In April 2015, the Veteran submitted a written statement that said that he was injured during his heavy artillery training in Ft. Chaffee, Arkansas. The injury occurred between September 1, 1958 and October 31, 1958 when he was firing a 105-howitzer and the recoil hit him in his right shoulder and sent him flying. The Veteran claimed that he injured his back, right shoulder, and neck. He stated that he was sent to Ft. Chaffee Hospital and kept for one day and placed on light duty for a week. Afterwards, he was sent to regular Guard duty. See VA 21-4138 Statement in Support of Claim received 4/22/2015. The Board observes that the period is within the 1958 to 1963 dates for the hospital admission cards that only showed the Veteran admitted to the hospital for heat exhaustion. Although, the fine print of the card acknowledges that "not all hospital cards are included", the Board finds that it this relevant evidence tends to weigh against the Veteran's claim since the document only lists treatment during his active-duty military service for heat prostration and no other conditions. See STR-Medical received 2/02/2009 at page 2; see Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 272 (2015) (holding that the Board can draw inferences against a claimant from the absence of documentation so long as it first establishes a proper foundation).

At the October 2022 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that "they put me on light duty, and I stayed on light duty". See Hearing Transcript received 10/03/2022 at page 8. He also testified that "I stayed in there two to three weeks...and after that, I wanted to get back...so I got back out there and started doing guard duty and working motor pool". Id. at pages 8-9.

The Board finds that the Veteran is a poor historian due to the inconsistencies of his statements in the claims file. First, in the 2015 statement, the Veteran stated he was on light duty for a week, but at the Board hearing in 2022, he stated that he was on light duty for two to three weeks. Further, the Veteran estimated that the incident occurred between September 1958 and October 1958 when he was in heavy artillery training in Ft. Chaffee, Arkansas, but a military questionnaire he filled out in 1983 showed that he reported serving in Ft. Jackson, South Carolina from June 1958 to 1959, and not serving in Ft. Chaffee, Arkansas until 1960. See Military Personnel Records received 11/27/2023 at page 44. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran is a poor historian and therefore affords his statements as to the onset of his back, neck, shoulder, and knee conditions little to no probative weight. See Kahana v. Shineski, 24 Vet. App. 428, 430 (2011) (holding that the Board has a responsibility, as a factfinder, to determine the credibility and weight to be given to evidence); see also Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143, 148 (2001) (explaining that inconsistent statements affect credibility and can warrant little or no probative value).

1. Service connection for a right knee condition to include total knee replacement is denied.

2. Service connection for a left knee condition to include total knee replacement is denied.

As stated above, the Veteran contends that he injured his knees after he was hit in the shoulder from the recoil of a 105-Howitzer that sent him flying in the air. Of note, the Veteran did not remember how he landed to cause injury to his knees, did not state any diagnosis he was given, nor any treatment at that time except for hospital admission for one day and light duty. See Hearing Transcript received 10/03/2022 at page
(explaining that inconsistent statements affect credibility and can warrant little or no probative value).

1. Service connection for a right knee condition to include total knee replacement is denied.

2. Service connection for a left knee condition to include total knee replacement is denied.

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has current complaints of bilateral knee pain, and had a knee replacement in 2008, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

At the outset, the Board finds that the only evidence of in-service incurrence of this injury is the Veteran's statements, which the Board finds are inconsistent in the record, and therefore are not probative. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Further, the Board finds that even if the Board found that the incident in service occurred, the Veteran is not competent to diagnose bilateral knee condition nor opine that it was due to the 105-Howitzer incident since the record shows he does not have the education or training to diagnose that condition nor provide a nexus between the incidents in service from 1958 to his knee replacement in 2008, roughly 50 years later. The Board bases the finding that the Veteran is not competent to diagnose biliteral knee condition on the fact that he has two years of college without a degree and did not report any medical education or certifications. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran is not competent to make a diagnosis in this case, which would require medical training and the use of medical equipment such as x-rays. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, the Veteran's statements in this regard are not competent and lack weight.

The August 2025 VA examiner found it less likely than not that the Veteran's bilateral knee condition was incurred during his active-duty service given no medical evidence that showed a diagnosis or treatment nor any continuation between the over 50 years between the claimed incident and the 2009 knee replacement surgery. Additionally, the record shows that he played professional football post-service in the 1960s, per his statement in the treatment record, which the Board finds also weighs against an injury occurring in service in 1958 and continuing 50 years later without intercurrent causes, e.g., his professional football career, the bus accident where he was thrown out of the bus and received disability benefits. See Capri received 1/05/2016 at page 63; see Hearing Transcript received 11/01/2019 at page 18.

While the Veteran believes the claimed bilateral knee conditions are related to the 105-howitzer incident, the Board reiterates that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against findings that in-service injury occurred. As most of the evidence weighs against the claim (that is to say, is neither in approximate balance nor nearly equal), the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is inapplicable and the claim for service connection for left and right knee disability is denied. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

3. Service connection for a right shoulder condition to include residuals is denied.

The Veteran asserts that his right shoulder condition was incurred during the 105-Howitzer incident when he was hit in the shoulder from the recoil, and he was sent flying in the air. Of note, the Veteran did not state any diagnosis he was given regarding his shoulder, nor any treatment at that time beyond hospital admission for one day and light duty. See Hearing Transcript received 10/03/2022 at page 2.

The Board incorporates by reference its findings in the above sections, which include the Board's finding that the Veteran is a poor historian, and that his statements as to the onset of the conditions are inconsistent and therefore entitled to little to no probative weight.

In the August 2025 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with right shoulder tendonitis, and right
incurred during the 105-Howitzer incident when he was hit in the shoulder from the recoil, and he was sent flying in the air. Of note, the Veteran did not state any diagnosis he was given regarding his shoulder, nor any treatment at that time beyond hospital admission for one day and light duty. See Hearing Transcript received 10/03/2022 at page 2.

In the August 2025 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with right shoulder tendonitis, and right shoulder instability. The August 2025 VA examiner found it was less likely than not that his right shoulder tendonitis and instability was caused by or incurred during service since the Veteran was diagnosed with right shoulder sprain in June 2016 via x-ray which is almost 60 years after the claimed in-service incident. Prior to the May 2016 treatment note, the right shoulder condition was not of record. The only evidence of a right shoulder condition prior to 2016 is the Veteran's lay statements, which the Board finds are inconsistent and therefore not entitled to probative weight.

Further, the Board finds that even if the Veteran's in-service incident occurred, the Veteran is not competent to diagnose right shoulder tendonitis and instability, nor is he competent to provide a nexus in this case. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As noted above, the Veteran has not been shown to have such medical training, education, or experience to make a medical diagnosis so his statements in this regard are not competent and lack weight.

Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for right shoulder sprain and instability is not warranted, and the claim is therefore denied. As most of the evidence weighs against the claim (that is to say, is neither in approximate balance nor nearly equal), the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is inapplicable and the claim for service connection for a right shoulder disability is denied. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

4. Service connection for a cervical spine condition is denied.

5. Service connection for headaches as secondary to a cervical spine condition is denied.

The Veteran asserts that his cervical spine condition was incurred during the 105-Howitzer incident when he was hit in the shoulder from the recoil, and he was sent flying in the air. Of note, the Veteran did not remember how he landed to cause injury to his cervical spine, did not state any diagnosis he was given, nor any treatment at the time of the incident which was hospital admission for one day and light duty. See Hearing Transcript received 10/03/2022 at page 2.

The Board incorporates by reference its findings in the above sections, which include that the Veteran is a poor historian, and that his statements as to the onset of the conditions are inconsistent and therefore entitled to no probative weight. Further, the Board also finds that cervical spine degenerative arthritis and IVDS are complex medical matters so they require medical expertise to diagnose or provide a nexus statement. Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran is not competent to diagnose his cervical spine conditions nor provide a nexus on the relationship to his claim in-service injury. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in August 2025 that found his cervical spine condition was less likely than not related to an inservice event or injury. As basis, the August 2025 VA examiner opined that his diagnoses of cervical strain, IVDS, and degenerative arthritis were not related to the claimed in-service injury. As rationale, the VA examiner opined that it has been 67 years since his claimed onset and the records show a diagnosis in 2008 of degenerative arthritis, and IVDS in 2025, given the gap in time from onset, the August 2025 VA examiner found it was less likely than not that the condition was incurred during his active-duty service.

Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for a cervical spine condition diagnosed as cervical spine degenerative arthritis, and IVDS, is not warranted, and the claim is therefore denied. As most of the evidence weighs against the claim (that is to say, is neither in approximate balance nor nearly equal), the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is inapplicable and the claim for service connection for a cervical spine condition is denied. Lynch v. McDonough
onset and the records show a diagnosis in 2008 of degenerative arthritis, and IVDS in 2025, given the gap in time from onset, the August 2025 VA examiner found it was less likely than not that the condition was incurred during his active-duty service.

Service connection for headaches as secondary to cervical spine condition

Relatedly, the Board finds that the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for headaches is also denied since the Veteran asserted that his headaches were caused by his cervical spine condition. See VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim received 5/17/2017 at page 3. Therefore, since his primary disability is not service connected, service connection for headaches is denied as a matter of law. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Additionally, the Board finds that the issue of direct service connection for headaches was not raised by the Veteran or the record.

6. Service connection for a lumbar spine condition to include back surgery is denied.

7. Service connection for sciatic nerve condition as secondary to a lumbar spine condition is denied.

The Veteran asserts that his lumbar spine condition was incurred during the 105-Howitzer incident when he was hit in the shoulder from the recoil and was sent flying in the air.

The Board incorporates by reference its findings in the above sections, which include that the Veteran is a poor historian, and that his statements as to the onset of the conditions are inconsistent and therefore entitled to no probative weight. Further, the Board also finds that the Veteran's diagnosed conditions of degenerative arthritis of the spine, lumbosacral strain, IVDS, and bilateral radiculopathy require medical expertise to diagnose. Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran is not competent to diagnose his lumbar conditions nor provide a nexus on their relationship to his claim in-service injury. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The August 2025 VA examiner found it was less likely than not that the Veteran's lumbar spine conditions were related to the 105-howitzer incident since his diagnoses were roughly 67 years after the alleged incident occurred, and therefore a nexus was not established. Although the August 2025 VA examiner based her opinion on the long time period between the alleged incident and his claimed in-service event in 1958, the Board finds that a remand for a medical opinion is not warranted since the Board finds that he is a poor historian given the inconsistencies in the record, and there being no other lay evidence or medical evidence that the event happened, a remand for another opinion would be of no benefit to the Veteran.

Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for a lumbar spine condition to include diagnosed lumbar strain, degenerative arthritis, IVDS, and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is not warranted, and the claim is therefore denied. As most of the evidence weighs against the claim (that is to say, is neither in approximate balance nor nearly equal), the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is inapplicable and the claim for service connection for a lumbar spine condition is denied. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Service connection for a sciatic nerve condition as secondary to lumbar spine condition

Relatedly, the Board finds that the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for a sciatic nerve condition is also denied since the Veteran asserted that his sciatic nerve condition was caused by his lumbar spine condition. Therefore, since his primary disability is not service connected, service connection for sciatic nerve condition is denied as a matter of law. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Furthermore, the Board finds that the issue of direct service connection for a sciatic nerve condition was not raised by the Veteran or the record.

Paul Sorisio

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board S. Dixon

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
denied since the Veteran asserted that his sciatic nerve condition was caused by his lumbar spine condition. Therefore, since his primary disability is not service connected, service connection for sciatic nerve condition is denied as a matter of law. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Furthermore, the Board finds that the issue of direct service connection for a sciatic nerve condition was not raised by the Veteran or the record.

Paul Sorisio

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board S. Dixon

Analyze in VA Law Explorer