DIABETES MELLITUS

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from November 4, 1987, to May 26, 1995, appeals the denial of service connection for diabetes, claimed as secondary to his service-connected PTSD. The Veteran's claim for diabetes was initially denied by the VA Regional Office in July 2020. The Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 to appeal this decision. A hearing was scheduled but later withdrawn by the Veteran's counsel. The Board's decision was based on evidence of record at the time of the July 2020 decision and evidence submitted within 90 days of the cancelled hearing. Service treatment records and post-service records did not reflect any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of diabetes. A VA examination in July 2020 also found no diagnostic evidence of diabetes and noted that PTSD had not been directly linked to weight gain or diabetes. The Board found this examination highly probative. The Veteran's own assertions about having diabetes were not considered competent medical evidence. As the Veteran failed to demonstrate a current diagnosis of diabetes, the Board denied service connection for diabetes, secondary to PTSD, finding the evidence persuasively weighed against the claim and that the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine was not applicable. Service connection for diabetes was denied.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of diabetes found in service treatment records or post-service records.; VA examination found no diagnostic evidence of diabetes.; Veteran's assertions of diabetes are not competent medical evidence.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26028185
Decision Date: 03/27/26	Archive Date: 03/27/26

DOCKET NO. 210412-152186
DATE: March 27, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes, to include as secondary to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran does not have and has not had a current disability of diabetes during or proximate to the period on appeal.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for diabetes, to include as secondary to PTSD are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served in the United States Army from November 4, 1987, to May 26, 1995.

The matter comes to the?Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2020 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied entitlement to service connection for diabetes. 

In April 2021, the Veteran filed a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, and elected the Hearing docket.

On February 28, 2024, the Veteran, via his counsel, withdrew the hearing request, cancelling the hearing scheduled for February 29, 2024. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative within 90 days of the cancelled hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days from the cancelled hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 20.801. 

The Veteran's representative submitted correspondence in April 2025 purporting to withdraw from representation. A motion for good cause to withdraw must be submitted and granted for a representative to withdraw. 38 C.F.R. § 20.6. No motion accompanied the correspondence. The Board reminded the representative of this and requested a motion in January 2026. No response has been received. Thus, the Board has not granted the withdrawal. Id.  

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes, to include as secondary to PTSD is denied.

In May 2020, the Veteran filed a claim for diabetes as secondary to PTSD and weight gain. See VA Form 21-526EZ. The Veteran is service-connected for PTSD. See July 2020 rating decision codesheet. 

To establish service connection, it is required that the evidence demonstrates a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In general, service connection requires the following: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection shall be granted on a secondary basis under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 where it is demonstrated that a service-connected disorder caused or aggravated a nonservice-connected disability.

When determining whether service connection is warranted, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). The Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance and does not require that the evidence be in exact equipoise. Id.

The initial question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability for diabetes based on the evidence of record at the time of the July 2020 rating decision and 90 days after the scheduled hearing See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300(a), 20.301.

Service treatment records do not reflect complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of diabetes. Post-service records do not reflect complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of diabetes either.

In July 2020, the Veteran underwent a
. Cir. 2021) (en banc). The Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is in approximate balance and does not require that the evidence be in exact equipoise. Id.

The initial question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability for diabetes based on the evidence of record at the time of the July 2020 rating decision and 90 days after the scheduled hearing See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300(a), 20.301.

Service treatment records do not reflect complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of diabetes. Post-service records do not reflect complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of diabetes either.

In July 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA Diabetes examination. The examiner reviewed the record and found that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of diabetes. The examiner also issued an opinion that stated, "Based on review of availble [sic] claims file, there is no diagnostic evidence of diabetes" and that noted PTSD has not been directly linked to weight gain or diabetes. The Board finds that the VA Diabetes examination and opinion highly probative as they reflect consideration of all relevant facts, and the examiner provided a rationale for the conclusions reached. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). 

Even though by filing his claim he asserts his belief that he has diabetes and that it should be service-connected in some manner, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis or opinion in this case as he lacks the requisite medical expertise. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Based on the evidence of record, the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of diabetes and has not had one 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); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Without evidence of a current disability, the claim for service connection for diabetes, to include as secondary to PTSD must be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim as there is no diagnosis, and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. The claim therefore must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see also Lynch, 21 F.4th at 781-82; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 

 

J. B. FREEMAN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Imber, M.

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.