RESPIRATORY

H. SEESEL · 2026 · Case ID: 26005090

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, a Marine Corps Veteran who served honorably from June 2005 to May 2011, including combat service in Afghanistan and Iraq, appeals the denial of service connection for a lung condition. The Veteran claims his symptoms are related to in-service exposures to burn pits, batteries, exhaust, human waste, and other chemicals. The Board reviewed multiple VA examinations conducted between March 2021 and March 2026. The initial examinations noted normal pulmonary function tests and chest x-rays, with examiners concluding no objective findings supported a lung condition diagnosis, though one examiner suggested possible asthma. Subsequent examinations reiterated the lack of objective findings for a diagnosable chronic respiratory condition, despite the Veteran's reported intermittent symptoms and environmental exposures. The Board found the most recent VA opinions highly probative, concluding that the Veteran's reported symptoms, without objective clinical findings, were insufficient to establish a diagnosis. The Board also noted that the Veteran, while competent to report symptoms, is not competent to provide a medical diagnosis. As the evidence persuasively weighed against a current lung disability, service connection was denied.

Rationale

No current diagnosis for a lung condition.; No objective clinical findings to support a lung condition.; VA examiner opinions found symptoms insufficient for diagnosis.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

20-28 944A

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26005090
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 20-28 944A
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a lung condition is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran does not have a current lung condition during the pendency of the appeal.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for a lung condition not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served honorably in the United States Marine Corps from June 2005 to May 2011. His decorations include a Combat Action Ribbon (Afghanistan) and an Iraq Campaign Medal. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) thanks the Veteran for his service to our country.

This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a January 2017 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

By way of procedural background, in a March 2024 decision, the Board denied service connection for a lung condition. The Veteran subsequently appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). At the Court, the parties submitted a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR). In January 2025, the Court granted a JMPR, vacating and remanding the issue. The Veteran claims for service connection for a lung condition was remanded in August 2025, and most recently January 2026, for further development, to include obtaining updated VA medical opinions. The Veteran was afforded VA medical opinions in February 2026 and in March 2026. For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the development sought as part of the January 2026 Remand. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

Service connection for a lung condition.

Generally, to prevail on the issue of service connection, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the persistent disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

As an initial matter, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for a lung condition and has not had any at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013).

Service treatment records (STRs) do not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for any lung condition.

In March 2021 the Veteran was afforded with a VA respiratory conditions examination. The Veteran reported symptoms of coughing, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, burning, itchy skin, and eye, throat, and nose irritation after exposure to burn pits, batteries, exhaust, human waste, and other chemicals in service. Current symptoms included shortness of breath, chest pain, headaches, and red spots appearing on skin. He denied any treatment. On examination, pulmonary function testing (PFT) pre-bronchodilator results were normal, and a chest x-ray showed a normal chest. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, signs, or symptoms. The examiner concluded that there was no findings, signs, or symptoms to support a diagnosis of any lung condition.

In September 2025, the Veteran had another VA respiratory conditions examination. The examiner concluded that the Veteran did not have any relevant diagnosis, but also noted that based on the Veteran's description, he "may" have asthma. PFT was performed, which did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function; however, asthma did not always show on PFT unless he was having an episode.

In February 2026, the Veteran was provided with a VA medical opinion. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran's condition was less likely than not related to service. The VA examiner noted that the March 2021 and September 2025 VA medical opinions were taken into consideration as well as the January 2026 Board Remand and the buddy statements. The VA examiner discussed the Veteran's STRs and post-service medical records. An addendum medical opinion was also provided in February 2026 which elaborated on the March 2021 and September 2025 VA medical opinions. The addendum explained that it was unknown why the prior 2021 examiner marked "no" under section 4B as there was no reason given for the bases of this answer other than subjective accounts of the Veteran's breathing patterns. The examiner explained that these descriptive breathing patterns can come from other reasons other than from the lungs, such as anxiety. Concerning the 2025 examination, the examiner explained that because the Veteran subjectively reported these symptoms it likely triggered the provider to think that maybe the Veteran had exercised induced asthma and proceed to check that box. The 2026 examiner continued to explain, however, that "coughing and shortness of breath with activity can also be caused by other conditions, it cannot be simply assumed that one has asthma. The best thing for this Veteran to do is undergo a methacholine challenge test. Objectively at this point, by way of PFT, he does not have asthma or a respiratory condition that can be diagnosed by PFT or by chest x-ray."

In March 2026, the Veteran was provided with a VA medical examination. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis associated with any lung condition. The VA examiner stated that "even though there is no diagnosable lung condition, the Veteran reports intermittent symptoms (shortness of breath, chest discomfort)." Additionally, the VA examiner stated that "review of the Veteran's medical records, including the March 2021 and September 2025 VA respiratory examinations, pulmonary function testing, and chest imaging, does not support a current diagnosable chronic respiratory condition." Further, the examiner indicated that "although the Veteran reports intermittent symptoms such as shortness of breath and chest discomfort and reports environmental exposures during deployment objective clinical findings necessary to establish a respiratory diagnosis are not present."

In March 2026, the Veteran was also provided with a VA medical opinion. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran's condition was less likely than not related to service. The VA examiner noted that "after review of the Veteran's claims file, prior VA examinations, pulmonary function testing, imaging studies, and the current examination, there is no objective evidence of a diagnosable chronic respiratory condition." The VA examiner indicated that pulmonary function testing demonstrates normal spirometry with FEV-1, FVC, and FEV-1/FVC values within normal limits, and prior chest imaging (X-ray) did not show evidence of chronic pulmonary disease. Additionally, the VA examiner considered the Veteran's report of intermittent symptoms including shortness of breath and chest discomfort and reports environmental exposures during deployment, including burn pits and explosive exposures. However, the VA examiner stated that these "symptoms alone without objective clinical findings are insufficient to establish a chronic respiratory diagnosis." The VA examiner also reviewed the Veteran's report of respiratory symptoms and environmental exposures during military service, including exposure to burn pits, explosions, and an IED blast while deployed in Afghanistan. In sum, the VA examiner stated that a "review of the claims file, prior VA examinations (March 2021 and September 2025), pulmonary function testing, imaging studies, and the current examination does not demonstrate a diagnosable chronic respiratory condition."

Although extensive medical records of record reflect treatment for multiple other medical conditions, such records are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for any current lung condition.

The Board finds the February and March 2026 VA examiner's opinions regarding the Veteran's lung condition highly probative. See Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71. Specifically, the January 2026 Board Remand requested that the VA examiner included a discussion of the following, when opining on a diagnosis for the Veteran: (1) the March 2021 VA examination findings in which PFT results were noted to be normal, but the examiner indicated that the results did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function; (2) the September 2025 VA examination findings that PFT was performed, which did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function; and (3) the September 2025 VA examiner's note that the Veteran "may" have asthma, which did not show on PFT. The Board finds that these directives were addressed in the most recent VA medical opinions. See Prejean v
Specifically, the January 2026 Board Remand requested that the VA examiner included a discussion of the following, when opining on a diagnosis for the Veteran: (1) the March 2021 VA examination findings in which PFT results were noted to be normal, but the examiner indicated that the results did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function; (2) the September 2025 VA examination findings that PFT was performed, which did not reflect the Veteran's current pulmonary function; and (3) the September 2025 VA examiner's note that the Veteran "may" have asthma, which did not show on PFT. The Board finds that these directives were addressed in the most recent VA medical opinions. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444 (2000) (factors for assessing the probative value of a medical opinion include the examiner's access to the claims folder and the Veteran's history, and the thoroughness and detail of the opinion).

While the Veteran asserts service connection for a lung condition, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of internal medical matters. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, while laypersons are competent to report observable symptomatology, they are not competent to provide medical opinion evidence. Given these facts, the Board finds that the Veteran's contention that his lung condition disability is inconsistent with, and outweighed by, the medical evidence of record, which does not show a current lung disability. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the lack of contemporaneous medical records is one fact the Board can consider and weigh against the other evidence, although the lack of such medical records does not in and of itself, render the lay evidence not credible).

There can be no doubt that the Veteran rendered honorable and faithful service for which the Board is grateful, and that he is sincere in his belief that his lung condition is related to service. However, the Board has carefully reviewed the record in depth and has been unable to identify a basis upon which service connection may be granted.

Importantly, service connection may only be granted for a current disability; when a claimed disability is not shown, there may be no grant of service connection. "In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim." See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Here, the record contains no current diagnosis for a lung condition. As the evidence is persuasively against a grant of service connection, the benefit of the doubt doctrine under 38 U.S.C. §5107(b), is not for application. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

Therefore, entitlement to service connection for a lung condition is denied.

H. SEESEL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Dourmashkin, Mark W.

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