PLANTAR FASCIITIS

Summary

The veteran, who served from May 1991 to May 1995, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, lumbar spine disorder, and bilateral radiculopathy. The Board denied service connection for all conditions, finding the evidence persuasively against a service connection. For plantar fasciitis, the Board noted the veteran had asymptomatic pes planus at service entrance and separation, with no in-service complaints or treatment. A private chiropractor opined service connection was warranted based on the veteran's report of pain, but this was not supported by service records. The VA examiner found the condition age-related and not service-related due to lack of in-service evidence and a significant gap between service and diagnosis. For the lumbar spine disorder, service records showed no complaints or treatment, and the condition was asymptomatic at service entrance and separation. While a private chiropractor diagnosed low back dysfunction and opined service connection, this opinion was based on the veteran's unsupported report of in-service pain and treatment. The VA examiner found the issues age-related and less likely than not service-related, noting the lack of in-service complaints and the 20-year gap. The Board found the evidence persuasively against service connection for the lumbar spine, assigning limited weight to the private opinion due to factual inaccuracies and failure to address aggravation. For bilateral radiculopathy, the veteran claimed it was secondary to the lumbar spine disability. As the lumbar spine claim was denied, the radiculopathy claims were also denied, with no neurologic complaints or symptoms shown in service.

Rationale

Service records showed asymptomatic pes planus at service entrance and separation.; No in-service complaints or treatment for foot pain documented.; Private opinion lacked evidentiary weight due to factual inaccuracies and failure to address aggravation.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26001881
Decision Date: 01/08/26	Archive Date: 01/08/26

DOCKET NO. 250626-563044
DATE: January 8, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for radicular pain and paresthesia of left lower extremity is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for radicular pain and paresthesia of right lower extremity is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record is persuasively against finding that the Veteran's bilateral plantar fasciitis is related to his military service. 

2. The evidence of record is persuasively against finding that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability is related to his military service. 

3. The evidence of record is persuasively against finding that the Veteran's radicular pain and paresthesia of the left lower extremity is related to his military service.

4. The evidence of record is persuasively against finding that the Veteran's radicular pain and paresthesia of the right lower extremity is related to his military service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for radicular pain and paresthesia of the left lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for radicular pain and paresthesia of the right lower extremity have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active duty military service from May 1991 to May 1995, with additional service in the military reserves.

This matter comes before the Board on appeal of a rating decision issued in May 2025 which found that new and relevant evidence had been received on all issues and denied service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, low back disability, and right and left lower extremity radiculopathy on the merits. In the June 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. 

Service Connection 

Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called "nexus" requirement.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  All three elements must be established by competent and credible evidence in order that service connection may be granted.

Service connection is also provided for a disability which is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 
2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called "nexus" requirement.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  All three elements must be established by competent and credible evidence in order that service connection may be granted.

Service connection is also provided for a disability which is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. VA has amended 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 to reflect that it will not concede aggravation unless certain additional conditions are met. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (b).

If a disability is noted on a Veteran's entrance examination, the Veteran cannot bring a claim for service incurrence for that disorder, but he may bring a claim for service-connected aggravation of that disorder. Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 466, 468 (1995). In that case, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1153 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 apply. Jensen v. Brown, 19 F.3d 1413, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1994). 

Service connection is warranted if the preexisting disorder was aggravated by a veteran's active service. A preexisting injury or disease will be presumed to have been aggravated by active service where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability was due to the natural progress of the disease. 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (a). The burden is on VA to establish a lack of aggravation of the preexisting disability. VA must show that there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of the disease. 38 U.S.C. § 1153 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (b); see also Jensen, 19 F.3d at 1417; Wagner, 370 F.3d at 1089. "Clear and unmistakable evidence" is a more formidable evidentiary burden than the preponderance of the evidence standard. See Vanerson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 254, 258 (1999).

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis

The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, which he asserts had its onset in service. Service treatment records show that at the time of entrance into active duty military service in May 1991, the Veteran had mild bilateral pes planus and hallux valgus with no symptoms. (See STR, 07/27/1998.) 

With respect to the finding of pes planus and hallux valgus on entry to service, the Board notes that a Veteran is presumed to have been sound upon entry into active duty service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the acceptance, examination, or enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the condition existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b). 

Because a defect was noted on entry in this case, the presumption of soundness does not apply.  Rather, the presumption of aggravation is triggered.  See Gilbert v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 49 (2012).  When there is a pre-existing disease or injury and an increase in severity in service, the presumption is that the disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progression of the disease or injury.  38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (a), (b); see also Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Cotant v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 116, 123-30 (2003).  In other words, when the disability increases in severity in service, the burden is on VA to rebut the presumption by showing clear and
 severity in service, the presumption is that the disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progression of the disease or injury.  38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (a), (b); see also Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Cotant v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 116, 123-30 (2003).  In other words, when the disability increases in severity in service, the burden is on VA to rebut the presumption by showing clear and unmistakable evidence that any increase during service was due to the natural progression of the disease or injury.  38 C.F.R. § 3.306(b); Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d at 1096.

Mere temporary or intermittent flare-ups of a preexisting injury or disease are insufficient to be considered aggravation of pre-service disability unless the underlying condition, as contrasted to symptoms, is worsened.  Jensen v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 304, 306-07 (1993); Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292 (1991).

Additionally, aggravation may not be conceded where the disability underwent no increase in severity during service on the basis of all the evidence of record pertaining to the manifestations of the disability prior to, during, and subsequent to service.  38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306; Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 402 (1995).

In considering whether a preexisting condition was aggravated by service, mere temporary or intermittent flare-ups during service of a pre-existing injury or disease are not sufficient to be considered "aggravation in service" unless the underlying condition, not just the symptoms, has worsened. Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 297 (1991). 

The service treatment records do not reflect any complaints or treatment referable to the feet.  At the time of separation from service in March 1995, the examination did not show any impairment of the Veteran's feet. The accompanying medical history questionnaire completed by the Veteran denied any foot problems or leg cramps or bone or joint deformities. At the time of his entrance into reserve service in November 1996, he was noted to have moderate bilateral pes planus which was asymptomatic. (See STR, 07/27/1998.) On the accompanying questionnaire, he denied having any foot trouble, cramps in his legs, and bone or joint deformity. 

In light of the above, the record fails to show increase in disability during service.  As such, the presumption of aggravation does not operate to enable an award of service connection here.

Post-service, in February 2013, the Veteran was treated at VA for multiple complaints, including aching pain in the bottom of his feet. (See CAPRI, 06/02/2015.) 

In May 2022, the Veteran submitted a report from a private medical evaluation conducted in February 2022 by M.T., a chiropractor. (See Medical Treatment Record, 05/17/2022.) The provider noted the Veteran's report of foot pain during active duty service and being treated by military medical personnel. She also stated that the Veteran had experienced pain and dysfunction in service which persisted to the present time. His current symptoms were listed as pain in the plantar surfaces of his feet when he first put weight on them in the morning which inhibited his ability to walk for 5 minutes. His pain was also aggravated by standing for long periods of time. The provider stated that the Veteran's physical examination was consistent with plantar fasciitis. Based on the Veteran's report of symptoms persisting since service, the provider offered the opinion that his current plantar fasciitis was entitled to service connection because it was directly and causally related to his military service. 

The VA examination in June 2022 noted that the Veteran had bilateral pes planus and bilateral hallux valgus prior to his entrance to active duty service in 1991, with both disabilities being asymptomatic at that time. (See C&P Exam, 07/13/2022.) The Veteran reported that he had pain in his feet since service and that he used inserts in his shoes. He reported pain flare-ups once or twice a month lasting anywhere from minutes to hours at a time. He had functional loss related to his pain of difficulty moving due to cramps and being unable to climb stairs. He was also unable to walk for prolonged periods of time
 connection because it was directly and causally related to his military service. 

The VA examination in June 2022 noted that the Veteran had bilateral pes planus and bilateral hallux valgus prior to his entrance to active duty service in 1991, with both disabilities being asymptomatic at that time. (See C&P Exam, 07/13/2022.) The Veteran reported that he had pain in his feet since service and that he used inserts in his shoes. He reported pain flare-ups once or twice a month lasting anywhere from minutes to hours at a time. He had functional loss related to his pain of difficulty moving due to cramps and being unable to climb stairs. He was also unable to walk for prolonged periods of time, unable to run, and unable to participate in most forms of exercise. The examiner noted that there was no evidence in the record that the Veteran had been treated for foot pain in service, despite the statements in the private medical opinion. Because of the lack of objective medical evidence to support the Veteran's report of treatment for foot pain in service, the examiner offered a negative nexus opinion, noting the more than 20 years between service separation and his presentation with plantar fasciitis. 

In March 2025, the Board remanded the claim to the AOJ with instructions to obtain an additional opinion to clarify whether the Veteran's claim plantar fasciitis represented a worsening of his bilateral pes planus which was asymptomatic at the time of service entrance in 1991. (See BVA Decision, 03/06/2025.) 

At the April 2025 VA examination, the Veteran reported having pulled out of MEPS (Military Entrance Processing Station) in order to have his feet and pes planus evaluated. (See C&P Exam, 04/17/2025.) He stated that he developed foot pain during boot camp and that it continued because he was in the honor guard and drill team which involved a lot of training and standing on his feet. Since leaving active and reserve service, he had worked primarily in factory-type jobs as a machine operator and has pain in his feet when he stood for longer than 30 to 45 minutes. He reported that he wore arch and heel supports for his foot pain. A few times per month he would have a pain flare-up where he had severe pain when he first stood up in the morning and it would last for a couple of days. The examiner diagnosed bilateral hallux valgus, bilateral pes planus or flat foot, and bilateral plantar fasciitis. The examiner noted that at the time of the Veteran's entrance to active duty in 1991, and his separation from service in 1995, as well as his entrance examination for reserve service in 1996, he was noted to have asymptomatic pes planus; plantar fasciitis was not shown in active duty or reserve service. 

Based on the fact that the Veteran's pes planus remained asymptomatic for the entirety of his active duty service as well as his reserve service, the examiner stated that there was no evidence of worsening of the Veteran's bilateral pes planus in service. Based on the lack of aggravation in service, the VA examiner offered the opinion that the Veteran's plantar fasciitis is not due to aggravation of the Veteran's preexisting pes planus as a result of his service. The examiner acknowledged the private medical opinion but did not consider it dispositive. 

The Board has reviewed all evidence of record with specific attention to the documents discussed above. After due consideration, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasively against service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis. Specifically, the Board notes that the service treatment records do not reflect any treatment for foot pain of any kind during his active or reserve service.  The evidence specifically shows that the Veteran's asymptomatic pes planus was unchanged at the end of his active service and beginning of his reserve service. The VA examiner provided the opinion that the Veteran's plantar fasciitis was not attributable to his military service more than 20 years prior to his claim.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms such as foot pain.  However, the fact that he did not report such symptoms on in-service reports of medical history is not consistent with his claim of in-service foot symptoms and thus such statements have diminished probative value.  Moreover, as a lay person, the Veteran is not competent to find that his in-service symptoms represented a chronic disability or relate to his current symptoms.  The issue is medically complex, requiring knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body and the anatomical relationships, pathology, and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376, n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

The Board acknowledges the private
 as foot pain.  However, the fact that he did not report such symptoms on in-service reports of medical history is not consistent with his claim of in-service foot symptoms and thus such statements have diminished probative value.  Moreover, as a lay person, the Veteran is not competent to find that his in-service symptoms represented a chronic disability or relate to his current symptoms.  The issue is medically complex, requiring knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body and the anatomical relationships, pathology, and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376, n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

The Board acknowledges the private medical opinion linking the Veteran's plantar fasciitis to his military service but finds it to be insufficiently supported by the evidence. The private medical provider based her positive nexus opinion on the statements and history furnished by the Veteran of having been treated for foot pain in service. However, this history is not supported by the service treatment records or the results of his examinations at service separation in 1995 or entrance to reserve service in 1996. Where the opinion is based upon an inaccurate factual premise it has no probative value. Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993). Therefore, the Board will not afford any evidentiary weight to the private opinion.  Additionally, the operative question on this issue is whether pre-existing disability was worsened by active service; the private opinion failed to address this central question.  

For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasively again service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis. The benefit-of-the-doubt standard does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). The claim is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine disorder

The Veteran seeks service connection for a lumbar spine disability, which he asserts had its onset in service. The Veteran's active duty service treatment records show no evidence of a low back disability on the service entrance examination in 1991 or the service separation examination in 1995. (See STR, 07/27/1998.) Likewise, the entrance examination for his reserve service in November 1996 did not include any complaints or other evidence of low back problems. (See STR, 07/27/1998.) There are no treatment records for back pain or other impairment during active duty or reserve service. 

The May 2022 report of the February 2022 private evaluation by chiropractor M.T. included a diagnosis of pain and dysfunction of the lumbar spine. (See Medical Treatment Record, 05/17/2022.) The provider noted the Veteran's report of low back pain during active duty service which was treated by military medical personnel. His current symptoms were described as progressive low back pain, which was intermittent in nature and varied in severity.  It was worse with lying in bed, standing, lifting, bending, walking, and transitioning to and from a seated position. Range of motion testing was described as flexion to 45 degrees, extension to 10 degrees, rotation to 10 degrees on the right and 15 degrees on the left, and lateral flexion to 15 degrees on the right and 20 degrees on the left. The provider offered the opinion that the Veteran's low back pain and dysfunction had its onset in service and continued since service, which meant that service connection was warranted based on it being directly and causally related to his service.

At the April 2025 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he had injured his lower back in service while stationed in Washington, D.C. (See C&P Exam, 04/17/2025.) He stated that he had experienced a lot of stress on his low back because of his duties in the honor guard which required prolonged periods of standing and drill team training as well as infantry duties of carrying heavy backpacks and operating a machine gun. He stated that he was seen for back pain at the Navy Yard in 1992 or 1993 but did not have any physical therapy or back surgery in service. Since leaving service he had mostly worked at factory-type labor operating machinery. His current symptoms were back pain which radiated down his legs intermittently, more on the left side, and limitation of motion. He described his pain as 7 out of 10 in intensity and reported that he used over-the-counter medication when needed. Range of motion testing showed flexion to 75 degrees, extension to 20 degrees, lateral flexion to 20 degrees bilaterally, and lateral rotation to 20 degrees bilaterally. Repetitive motion over time was likely to result in a loss of 5 degrees of motion on all planes. 

The VA examiner offered the opinion that the Veteran
 did not have any physical therapy or back surgery in service. Since leaving service he had mostly worked at factory-type labor operating machinery. His current symptoms were back pain which radiated down his legs intermittently, more on the left side, and limitation of motion. He described his pain as 7 out of 10 in intensity and reported that he used over-the-counter medication when needed. Range of motion testing showed flexion to 75 degrees, extension to 20 degrees, lateral flexion to 20 degrees bilaterally, and lateral rotation to 20 degrees bilaterally. Repetitive motion over time was likely to result in a loss of 5 degrees of motion on all planes. 

The VA examiner offered the opinion that the Veteran did not have a low back disability diagnosis, noting that the Veteran's primary care physician had not found any back disability. The VA examiner also noted that the Veteran's service separation examination in 1995 and the enlistment in the reserves in 1996 both showed no evidence of low back pain or other disabilities. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran's low back issues were age-related and were less likely than not related to his military service 27 years prior. The VA examiner acknowledged the private opinion and the range of motion findings there which were more restricted than at the VA examination but found it more compelling that the Veteran's primary care provider had never diagnosed a low back disability.  

With respect to the examiner's finding that there was no low back diagnosis, the Board notes that current disability can include functional impairment in earning capacity.  Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).  In this case, the Veteran has been shown by both the VA examination and the private examination to have reduced range of motion in his low back due to pain, which is a functional impairment and may have an impact on his earning capacity. Thus, the lack of a diagnosis or demonstration of underlying pathology is not the basis for the Board's determination.

However, the evidence is persuasively against finding that the current disability is related to or had its onset in a period of active service.  In this regard, the Board notes the VA examiner's statement that the Veteran's low back pain, which has been medically evaluated for the first time more than 20 years after service, is age-related. The Board acknowledges the private opinion of M.T. which links the Veteran's low back pain to his military service. However, this opinion relies on the statement of the Veteran that he had back pain in service and received treatment in service and that the back pain persisted since separation from service. This statement is contradicted by the service treatment records which show no evidence of treatment or complaints during military service. The record also shows that the Veteran had no findings of back problems at the time of separation from active service in 1995 or admission to the reserves in 1996, and the Veteran expressly denied any back pain or problems in the medical history questionnaires he completed at the time of the examinations. The Board notes the Veteran's assertions related to his low back pain are related to duties in the honor guard and drill team with prolonged standing and presentation at funerals putting stress on his back. The Board also notes the Veteran's reports of his working conditions since service separation as being in a plant or mill or factory setting as a machine operator with prolonged standing. 

Because the evidence does not show the reported low back pain complaints or treatment during service, and there is no evidence of any evaluation of low back pain in the more than 20 years between service and the filing of the complaint, with working conditions similar to those identified as causing back problems in service, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasively against the claim. 

The private medical opinion relied on reports of treatment in service which are not consistent with the evidence and does not otherwise address the significance of the more than 20 years between service and the evaluation, the Veteran's working conditions during those years, or the impact of aging on the Veteran's symptoms. Therefore, the Board assigns the private medical opinion limited evidentiary value and finds it less persuasive than that of the VA examiner who considered those factors. The benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). The claim is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for radicular pain and paresthesia of left lower extremity 

Entitlement to service connection for radicular pain and paresthesia of right lower extremity 

The Veteran seeks service connection for radiculopathy affecting both the right and left lower extremities which he asserts is the result of his lumbar spine disability. Neither the Veteran's active duty treatment records nor his reserve treatment records show any complaints or treatment for radicular symptoms in either leg. 

The May 2022 report of the February 2022 private evaluation by chiropr
 considered those factors. The benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). The claim is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for radicular pain and paresthesia of left lower extremity 

Entitlement to service connection for radicular pain and paresthesia of right lower extremity 

The Veteran seeks service connection for radiculopathy affecting both the right and left lower extremities which he asserts is the result of his lumbar spine disability. Neither the Veteran's active duty treatment records nor his reserve treatment records show any complaints or treatment for radicular symptoms in either leg. 

The May 2022 report of the February 2022 private evaluation by chiropractor M.T. included a diagnosis of sciatic pain in the left and right lower extremities due to his low back dysfunction. (See Medical Treatment Record, 05/17/2022.) The Veteran reported experiencing radicular pain and paresthesias of the left and right lower extremities. The provider offered the opinion that these symptoms were directly and causally related to his low back disability which was attributed to service. 

The VA examination in April 2025 noted that the Veteran had subjective complaints of bilateral radicular symptoms of mild intermittent pain, mild paresthesias, and mild numbness. (See C&P Exam, 04/17/2025.) The Veteran reported that since service he had worked in factory-type settings as a machine operator and had back pain radiating down both legs, worse on the left. The examiner noted that there were no objective findings to support these reported symptoms. 

The Board has reviewed all evidence of record with specific attention to the documents discussed. The Board notes that the claim of service connection for radiculopathy in the left and right legs is claimed as secondary to or the neurological manifestation of his low back disability. As such, a successful claim of service connection for radiculopathy is contingent upon a successful claim of service connection for low back disability. In this instance, as discussed above, the evidence is against the claim of service connection for low back disability. As a result, the claims of service connection for radiculopathy in the right and left leg must be denied.  Indeed, there are no neurologic complaints or symptoms shown in service and there is no history of continuing symptoms for such, precluding an award of service connection on a direct basis.

 

Eric S. Leboff

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Handy, Cheryl E.

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.