DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

Summary

The Veteran, a veteran who served from August 1969 to May 1971, appeals the denial of service connection for a lumbar spine disability, including spinal stenosis. The Veteran claims the condition resulted from in-service training in West Germany involving helicopter jumps while carrying radio equipment, which he asserts caused a back injury. He also stated he was discouraged from reporting such injuries. His spouse corroborated his complaints of back pain since shortly after his separation from service. The Board found the Veteran's and his spouse's lay statements credible and afforded them high probative value, establishing the second element of service connection (in-service injury). The agency of original jurisdiction had already favorably found a current diagnosis of lumbar spine stenosis, satisfying the first element (current disability). For the third element (nexus), the Board considered the Veteran's lay opinion but found it lacked probative value as he is not competent to render medical opinions on etiology. However, the Board gave high probative value to the opinions in the February 2019 and January 2020 VA medical records, where treating clinicians opined that the current lumbar disorder was as likely as not related to the in-service helicopter jumps. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board concluded that the evidence supports direct service connection for a lumbar spine disability, including spinal stenosis. Therefore, entitlement to service connection for this condition is granted.

Rationale

Favorable finding of current lumbar spine stenosis by AOJ; Credible lay statements from Veteran and spouse regarding in-service injury and post-service symptoms; Competent VA clinician opinions establishing nexus between in-service injury and current disability

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25109121
Decision Date: 12/17/25	Archive Date: 12/17/25

DOCKET NO. 200928-111856
DATE: December 17, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, to include spinal stenosis, is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the lumbar spine disability is attributable to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, to include spinal stenosis, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.104, 3.303, 4.3.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to May 1971. 

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2020 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In a September 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On May 30, 2024, the Veteran and his spouse testified at a Board hearing. A transcript of the hearing is of record. 

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the May 2024 hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). See 38 U.S.C. § 7107(b)(1).

1. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability, to include spinal stenosis, is granted.

The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disorder that he contends is directly related to military service. See January 2020 VA Form 20-0995; see also March 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that when stationed in West Germany, his training duties included jumping out of helicopters while holding radio equipment, which caused him to injure his back. See, e.g., March 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ; August 2024 Veteran Lay Statement. 

Generally, to establish service connection, there must be competent and credible 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 granted for a disease first 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).

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case, and 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; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (benefit-of-the-doubt rule not for application when evidence persuasively favors one side or the other).

In evaluating the evidence, the Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility
(d).

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case, and 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; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (benefit-of-the-doubt rule not for application when evidence persuasively favors one side or the other).

In evaluating the evidence, the Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Turning to the record, regarding the first element of service connection, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) favorably found that the Veteran was diagnosed with lumbar spine stenosis. See March 2020 Rating Decision. Under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings made by the AOJ in the absence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Thus, the first element of service connection, a current disability, has been met. 

The second service connection element requires evidence showing in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury. The record contains the Veteran's repeated and consistent assertion that his military duties when stationed in West Germany included training that involved jumping out of helicopters while carrying radio equipment. See February 2019 VA Medical Record; March 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ; January 2020 VA Medical Record; May 2024 Board Hearing Transcript; August 2024 Veteran Lay Statement. Further, the Veteran has stated that he was discouraged from reporting any back injury to medical and that such reporting would necessitate a delay in separation. See, e.g., January 2020 VA Medical Record. Additionally, the Veteran's spouse, whom he met and married just a few years after his separation from service, stated that since the start of their relationship in January 1975, the Veteran has complained of back pain. See August 2024 Spouse Lay Statement. 

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran and his spouse are competent to report experiences and symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge, not medical expertise, as it comes to them through the senses. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology, where the determination is not medical in nature and is capable of lay observation. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). 

Thus, the Board deems credible the lay statements and testimony provided by the Veteran and his spouse regarding the back symptoms experienced during and within the years immediately following the Veteran's separation from military service and affords those statements high probative value. The Board therefore finds that the second element of direct service connection is met. 

The remaining necessary element to establish service connection is evidence of a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called "nexus" requirement. Here, 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 has considered the Veteran's lay statements of record and acknowledges his sincere belief that his current back disability is related to service. See, e.g., August 2024 Veteran Lay Statement. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge, not medical expertise, as it comes to him through the senses. See Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469. But as to etiology of the back disability, the Board finds the Veteran is not competent to render an opinion. The evidence of record does not suggest that the Veteran possesses the requisite training or credentials needed to render a competent opinion as to medical diagnosis or etiology. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, the Veteran's opinions do not constitute competent medical evidence and lack probative value.

Nevertheless, the record contains competent medical evidence that addresses the etiology of the Veteran's lumbar disability and provides evidence of a causal relationship between that present disability and the in-service injury. 

The Veteran's treating VA clinicians have asserted a positive nexus between the in-service helicopter training and the current spinal stenosis disability,
 Board finds the Veteran is not competent to render an opinion. The evidence of record does not suggest that the Veteran possesses the requisite training or credentials needed to render a competent opinion as to medical diagnosis or etiology. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As such, the Veteran's opinions do not constitute competent medical evidence and lack probative value.

Nevertheless, the record contains competent medical evidence that addresses the etiology of the Veteran's lumbar disability and provides evidence of a causal relationship between that present disability and the in-service injury. 

The Veteran's treating VA clinicians have asserted a positive nexus between the in-service helicopter training and the current spinal stenosis disability, opining that the present back disorder is as likely as not related to the in-service helicopter jumps. See February 2019 and January 2020 VA Medical Records.  

The Board finds that the VA clinicians drew upon their clinical treatment of the Veteran, and have training, knowledge, and expertise on which they relied to render the opinions. The Board observes that it is within the province of a qualified professional to determine the significance of evidence, which the VA clinicians did in this case. As such, the Board finds the February 2019 and January 2020 VA clinicians rendered opinions that provide an adequate basis upon which to decide the claim and affords those opinions high probative value. 

Based on the foregoing and resolving any doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board concludes that the evidence supports the claim for service connection for a lumbar disability on a direct basis. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 4.3. 

Thus, entitlement to service connection for a lumbar disability, to include spinal stenosis, is warranted, and the appeal as to this claim is granted.

 

 

S. Schick

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	C.Z. Noh

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.