DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

Summary

The veteran, who served from July 1966 to July 1968, appeals the denial of service connection for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, degenerative arthritis, and associated bilateral radiculopathy, as well as a claim for Total Disability based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU). The veteran contended that his back condition resulted from driving in convoys on rough roads in Vietnam. Service records indicated his MOS was vehicle driver, but no in-service complaints or treatment for back issues were documented. His separation examination noted a normal spine and no back trouble. Post-service, VA treatment records did not reflect back complaints until January 2023, over five decades after service, when he was diagnosed with lumbar spine stenosis, degenerative disc disease, and arthritis. Two VA examinations were conducted; both opined that the veteran's current back conditions were less likely than not related to service, attributing them to years of manual labor post-service rather than in-service events. The Board found the VA opinions probative, noting the lack of in-service complaints and the delayed onset of symptoms. The Board denied service connection for the back conditions and the secondary radiculopathy claims. Regarding TDIU, the veteran's combined rating was 60%, but the Board found his service-connected disabilities, including PTSD, tinnitus, hearing loss, and erectile dysfunction, did not render him unemployable. While acknowledging some occupational and social impairment due to PTSD and irritability, the Board found the evidence did not support unemployability, citing the veteran's retirement, continued hobbies like golfing and bowling, and lack of complaints in recent VA treatment records. Therefore, the TDIU claim was also denied.

Rationale

No in-service complaints or treatment for back issues.; Separation exam normal; delayed onset of symptoms.; VA opinions found less likely than not related to service.; Attributed to post-service manual labor.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26021512
Decision Date: 03/10/26	Archive Date: 03/10/26

DOCKET NO. 251015-584688
DATE: March 10, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy as secondary to lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy as secondary to lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis is denied.

Entitlement to a total disability rating on the basis of individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis did not onset in or within a year of separation from service and are not causally related to service.

2. The Veteran's left and right lower extremity radiculopathy is due to his back disability, which is not service connected.

3. The Veteran is not unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis have not been met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131, 5103A, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy as secondary to lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis have not been met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131, 5103A, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy as secondary to lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis have not been met. 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131, 5103A, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310.

4. The criteria for entitlement to TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 4.16.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from July 1966 to July 1968.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in July 2025 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. 

In May 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a September 2024 decision. In July 2025, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior September 2024 decision. 

In the October 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. 

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2024 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis 

The Veteran contends that he has a back disability due to his service. Specifically, he has alleged that he injured his back due to driving
 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[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis 

The Veteran contends that he has a back disability due to his service. Specifically, he has alleged that he injured his back due to driving in convoys on bad roads in Vietnam. 

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 also be granted on a presumptive basis for certain chronic diseases, including arthritis, if shown to be manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year following a veteran's separation from active service. 38 U.S.C. §§?1101, 1112, 1113; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.307, 3.309. 

The AOJ provided favorable findings in its July 2025 rating decision that the Veteran has a current disability, drove over rough roads in Vietnam, and is presumed exposed to herbicides in service. Under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings by the AOJ in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). 

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 a current diagnosis of degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's condition began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The evidence further persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's arthritis onset within a year of his separation from service.

On VA examination in August 2023 and September 2024, the Veteran was noted to have diagnoses of degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease.

Service records reflect that the Veteran's military occupational specialty was vehicle driver. In a statement submitted with his July 2023 claim, the Veteran reported that he drove convoys for two years in service and there was a lot of "grinding." He stated that he never complained of back issues in service.

Service treatment records do not reflect any complaints related to the back. His July 1968 separation examination noted a normal spine and he checked "no" to back trouble of any kind on an accompanying report of medical history form.

Post-service VA treatment records reflect no complaints of back problems until January 2024 when he reported he was diagnosed with lumbar spine stenosis, degenerative disc disease, and arthritis by his primary care physician six months prior after experiencing increasing back pain.

On VA examination in August 2023, he reported his back pain started in 1967 in service and had become progressively worse over time.

The Veteran has reported he worked as a mill operator until he retired in 2007.

While the Veteran is competent to report feeling back pain in service, the Board notes that he denied back problems when he separated from service and although he stated that he began getting treatment at the VA in 1998, VA treatments records do not reflect any complaint of back pain until 2023, more than five decades after service, when he was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease.

On VA examination in August 2023, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's current back disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by his service. 

In September 2024, another VA opinion was obtained. The VA examiner noted the Veteran's 1968 separation examination indicated no back problems and no back problems are noted in VA treatment records until 2023. The VA examiner acknowledged the Veteran's driving and lifting during service for two years as well as that after service he performed many years of manual labor. The examiner concluded that
8, VA treatments records do not reflect any complaint of back pain until 2023, more than five decades after service, when he was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease.

On VA examination in August 2023, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's current back disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by his service. 

In September 2024, another VA opinion was obtained. The VA examiner noted the Veteran's 1968 separation examination indicated no back problems and no back problems are noted in VA treatment records until 2023. The VA examiner acknowledged the Veteran's driving and lifting during service for two years as well as that after service he performed many years of manual labor. The examiner concluded that it is less than likely that the claimed diagnosis is from service and more likely caused by years of manual labor after the service.

While the Veteran is competent to state what symptoms he feels, the etiology of his currently diagnosed degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease is a complex medical question not capable of lay observation and is not the type of medical issue for which a lay opinion may be accepted as competent evidence. As a lay person, the Veteran does not have the education, training and experience to offer a medical diagnosis or an opinion as to the onset or etiology of this condition, which is diagnosed with medical testing and involves internal and unseen system processes. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24?Vet. App.?428, 438 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

The Board finds the VA examiner's opinion is the most probative etiology opinion of record as it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The VA examiner considered the duties performed by the Veteran during his two years in service and the duties he performed after service, during his many years in a very laborious job.  He provided a very detailed and thorough discussion and opinion with citations to medical literature to further support his probative opinion.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasive that service connection for a back disability is not warranted as the condition did not onset in service or within a year of service separation and is not causally related to service.

2. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy as secondary to lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis 

3. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy as secondary to lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis 

The Veteran has claimed service connection for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy as secondary to his back disability.

Under section 3.310(a) of VA regulations, service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury. 38?C.F.R. §?3.310(a). 

The Veteran's August 2023 VA examination reflects that the Veteran's lower extremity radiculopathy is most likely due to his degenerative disc disease and degenerative arthritis in his back. The August 2023 VA examiner further opined that the lower extremity radiculopathy is less likely than not directly related to the Veteran's service, to include his presumed toxic exposures.

As the Board has found above that service connection for a back disability is not warranted, secondary service connection for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy is thus also not for application. The evidence further does not support service connection for lower extremity radiculopathy on a direct basis.

Therefore, the claim for service connection for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy is denied.

4. Entitlement to individual unemployability 

VA regulations allow for the assignment of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) when a veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, and the veteran has certain combinations of ratings for service-connected disabilities.

Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities provided that if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more such disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more.  For the purpose of one 60
 substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities, and the veteran has certain combinations of ratings for service-connected disabilities.

Total disability ratings for compensation may be assigned, where the schedular rating is less than total, when the disabled person is, in the judgment of the rating agency, unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities provided that if there is only one such disability, this disability shall be ratable at 60 percent or more, and that, if there are two or more such disabilities, there shall be at least one disability ratable at 40 percent or more, and sufficient additional disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more.  For the purpose of one 60 percent or one 40 percent disability in combination, disabilities resulting from a common etiology or a single accident will be considered as one disability.  38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a).

The Veteran does not meet the schedular requirements for a TDIU, as his combined evaluation is 60 percent (posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rated as 50 percent disabling; tinnitus rated as 10 percent disabling, bilateral hearing loss and erectile dysfunction each rated as noncompensable). However, it is the established policy of VA that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disabilities shall be rated totally disabled.  38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b).  Therefore, if a veteran fails to meet the rating enunciated in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), as here, an extraschedular rating is for consideration where a veteran is unemployable due to service-connected disability.  38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b).  An extraschedular rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b) requires a determination that a particular Veteran is rendered unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of his or her service-connected disabilities.  See VAOPGCPREC 06-1996.

In this regard, the Board notes that, for a Veteran to prevail on a claim for TDIU on an extraschedular basis, it is necessary that the record reflect some factor which places the case in a different category than other Veterans with an equal rating of disability.  See Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993).  The pertinent question is whether the Veteran is capable of performing the physical and mental acts required by employment, not whether the Veteran can find employment.  Id.  This is so because a disability rating in itself is recognition that the impairment makes it difficult to obtain or keep employment.  Id.  

The phrase "unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation" contains both economic and noneconomic components.  See Ray v. Wilkie, 31 Vet. App. 58, 73 (2019).  The economic component refers to an occupation earning more than marginal income (outside of a protected environment) as determined by the U.S. Department of Commerce as the poverty threshold for one person. Id.  The noneconomic component requires a determination as to a veteran's ability to secure and follow such employment.  Id.  Attention should be given to the veteran's history, education, skill, and training; whether the veteran has the physical ability (both exertional and nonexertional) to perform the types of activities required by the occupation at issue (e.g., lifting, bending, sitting, standing, walking, climbing, grasping, typing, and reaching, as well as auditory and visual limitations); and whether the veteran has the mental ability to perform the activities required by the occupation at issue (e.g., memory, concentration, ability to adapt to change, handle work place stress, get along with coworkers, and demonstrate reliability and productivity).  Id.

The Board notes that the ultimate question of whether a Veteran is capable of substantially gainful employment is not a medical one; that determination is for the adjudicator.  Geib v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  Thus, the VA examiners' conclusions are not dispositive.  However, the observations of the examiners regarding functional impairment due to the service-connected disability go to the question of physical or mental limitations that may impact his or her ability to obtain and maintain employment.

The central inquiry is "whether the veteran's service connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability." Hatlestad v. Brown, 5?Vet. App.?524, 529 (1993). Consideration may be given to his or her level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but advancing age and the
ki, 733 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  Thus, the VA examiners' conclusions are not dispositive.  However, the observations of the examiners regarding functional impairment due to the service-connected disability go to the question of physical or mental limitations that may impact his or her ability to obtain and maintain employment.

The central inquiry is "whether the veteran's service connected disabilities alone are of sufficient severity to produce unemployability." Hatlestad v. Brown, 5?Vet. App.?524, 529 (1993). Consideration may be given to his or her level of education, special training, and previous work experience, but advancing age and the impairment caused by nonservice-connected disabilities are not for consideration in determining whether such a total disability rating is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. §§?3.341, 4.16, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4?Vet. App.?361, 363 (1993).

The Veteran is service connected for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, and erectile dysfunction.    

He reported he worked for the same company from 1966 to 2007 as an operator and has a high school education.

In a July 2023 statement, the Veteran reported that he had reached retirement age at his job but would have continued working but he couldn't handle the stress anymore. He stated that he could neither physically do the work or handle it emotionally. He reported that his temper affected his job and stated that his mood instability, anger issues, inability to connect to people, and lack of motivation all render him unable to maintain employment.

The Veteran submitted a July 2023 private opinion. The examiner stated that the Veteran's daily symptoms may include depression, irritability, and cognitive impairments that make it very difficult for him to be around others, concentrate, or complete daily tasks in the workplace. The private examiner opined that the Veteran's irritability, anger, and uncontrollable, unprovoked outbursts would not be tolerated in a workplace and his mood instability, propensity for anger, and overall inability to relate with others greatly impairs his capacity to perform at an acceptable professional standard. The examiner further stated that the Veteran's sleep disturbances caused by his PTSD impairs the Veteran's ability to focus and concentrate. 

On VA PTSD examination in August 2023, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran has occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to his service-connected PTSD. The Veteran reported he has intermittent interpersonal problems and is sometimes short-tempered and irritable, so he stays home most of the time to avoid dealing with people. He also reported short term memory problems such as forgetting where he has put things and having trouble following directions.

A March 2021 VA psychology consultation record reflects that the Veteran reported being reactive and impulsive due to his PTSD but is able to stop and think before he reacts so he does not react in a way he doesn't want to. He reported five to seven hours of restful sleep a night and socializing with friends on Friday nights. He reported more noticeable difficulty finding words in the past year but denied difficulties with memory or attention. VA treatment records from 2023 to 2024 reflect that the Veteran reported being active in golfing and bowling as much as physically possible and he was regularly noted to have a normal mood and affect and behavior and judgment. The record reflects no complaint of or treatment for PTSD symptoms.

The Board acknowledges the July 2023 private opinion but finds that the severity of the symptoms suggested are not supported by other records. Although the record does reflect that the Veteran has consistently reported experiencing irritability and difficulty working with others, the evidence does not reflect that such difficulties rise to a level to render the Veteran unemployable. Some sleep impairment and memory loss is further reflected by the August 2023 VA examination in addition to being noted by the July 2023 private examiner, but treatment records do not suggest that functional problems due to sleep impairment or memory difficulties are of such severity that the Veteran is unemployable. Although the Board finds that the Veteran's PTSD symptoms would cause him difficulty occupationally, as is reflected by the 50 percent rating he is assigned, the record does not support that the symptoms render him unemployable, either alone or in conjunction with his noncompensable hearing loss, tinnitus, and erectile dysfunction. 

In this case, while the Veteran is retired and not employed, the Board finds that the persuasive evidence does not support that the Veteran is unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities.  In making this finding, the Board emphasizes that the rating schedule is intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions
employable. Although the Board finds that the Veteran's PTSD symptoms would cause him difficulty occupationally, as is reflected by the 50 percent rating he is assigned, the record does not support that the symptoms render him unemployable, either alone or in conjunction with his noncompensable hearing loss, tinnitus, and erectile dysfunction. 

In this case, while the Veteran is retired and not employed, the Board finds that the persuasive evidence does not support that the Veteran is unemployable due to his service-connected disabilities.  In making this finding, the Board emphasizes that the rating schedule is intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations.  38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. To the extent that service-connected disabilities affect the Veteran's employment, the assigned schedular ratings for his disabilities compensate the Veteran for such impairment.

Accordingly, the claim for entitlement to a TDIU is denied.

 

 

LESLEY A. REIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Christensen

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.