NEUROLOGICAL

Summary

The Veteran, an Air Force Veteran who served from July 1967 to May 1971 during the Vietnam Era, appeals the denial of service connection for neuropathy, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (a-fib), and a gastrointestinal condition (colon polyps and diverticulitis). The Veteran contended that neuropathy developed during service, and a-fib and diverticulitis began during service or are related to an in-service event. The Board denied service connection for all three conditions. Regarding neuropathy, the Board found no evidence of a current diagnosis, noting that while VA providers diagnosed "possible diabetic neuropathy" and "diabetes mellitus with signs of peripheral neuropathy" in 2022 and 2024, respectively, these were attributed to non-service-connected diabetes. No neuropathy complaints or treatment were noted in service treatment records or private medical records. The Board also found the Veteran was not competent to provide a diagnosis and that a VA examination was not warranted as the criteria were not met. For a-fib and the gastrointestinal condition, the Board found the evidence weighed against service connection. Service treatment records from 1967-1971 showed no complaints or treatment for cardiac or gastrointestinal issues, and the separation medical examination was normal in these areas. While the Veteran sought VA care in 2022 reporting a history of diverticulitis and partial colectomy, and private records showed a-fib, the Board found no evidence these conditions began in service or were related to an in-service event. The Board also noted the Veteran did not identify a specific in-service event for these conditions and that a VA examination was not warranted as the evidence did not establish in-service onset or a nexus. The Board concluded the evidence persuasively weighed against service connection for all claimed conditions.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of neuropathy found in service treatment records or private medical records.; VA providers attributed leg pains to non-service-connected diabetes mellitus.; Veteran not competent to provide a diagnosis; VA examination not warranted.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26032189
Decision Date: 04/08/26	Archive Date: 04/08/26

DOCKET NO. 260126-628295
DATE:       April 8, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had neuropathy at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that paroxysmal atrial fibrillation or a gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis, began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for neuropathy, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served active-duty Air Force from July 1967 to May 1971 during the Vietnam Era without foreign service. See DD214.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2024 rating decision (RD) issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the January 2026 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 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review in September 2025. 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

The Board thoroughly reviewed all evidence in the Veteran's file. In every decision, the Board must provide a statement of the reasons and bases for its determination, adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision, as well as to facilitate review by the Court. 38?U.S.C. §?7104(d)(1). Although the entire record must be reviewed by the Board, the Court has repeatedly found that the Board is not required to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15?Vet. App.?143, 149 (2001) (rejecting the notion that the Veterans Claims Act mandates the Board discuss all evidence). Rather, the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the appellant. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14?Vet. App.?122 (2000). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. The appellant must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake, supra.

Service connection

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 (
 the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake, supra.

Service connection

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). All elements must be satisfied before service connection may be achieved.  

Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after the military discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to the period of military service, establishes that the disease was incurred during the active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(d).

Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran submitted a statement indicating that "most of my medical records were destroyed in a fire at the military records center between 1970 and 1972." See May 2024 Buddy/Lay Statement.

However, the Board takes judicial notice that the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) estimates records that lost in the fire on July 12, 1973, includes records for Army personnel discharged between November 1, 1912, and January 1, 1960, and Air Force personnel discharged between September 25, 1947, and January 1, 1964. National Personnel Records Center, https://www.archives.gov/personnel-records-center/fire-1973 (accessed April 7, 2026). The latest date of discharge for the personnel whose records were estimated to have been lost in the fire was in January 1964, greater than seven years prior to the Veteran's discharge date. The claims file does not contain notification from NPRC that the Veteran's records were unavailable or that they were identified as lost in the NPRC fire. 

Further, while VA notified the Veteran in May 2022 that service treatment records were unavailable for review, the claims file contains 77 pages of service treatment records, including enlistment and separation medical reports and chronological record of medical care from August 1967 to April 1971. See VBMS entry document type "STR-Medical," receipt date 05/28/1971; May 2022 Correspondence. The claims file does not contain certification that service treatment records are complete. However, the service treatment records in the claims file reflect the Veteran's enlistment and separation medical examinations and routine medical care throughout his period of active-duty service. The Board finds the service treatment records in the claims file are sufficient to adjudicate the claims on appeal.

1. Entitlement to service connection for neuropathy

The Veteran contends neuropathy "developed during service." See May 2024 Fully Developed Claim. 

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 carefully reviewed the evidence of record and concludes there is no evidence of a current diagnosis of neuropathy and therefore, there is no basis upon which to predicate a grant of service connection for neuropathy. The reasons follow.

Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran did not describe symptoms experienced or identify the body part he contends is affected by neuropathy.

Service treatment records in the claims file reflect medical care from August 1967 to April 1971 without complaints or treatment related to neuropathy symptoms. See VBMS entry document type "STR-Medical," receipt date 05/28/1971, pgs. 34-77. In May 1971, the Veteran indicated on the separation Report of Medical History that he had dental, kidney, back, and foot issues. Id. at 30-31. Medical personnel noted on the separation Report of Medical Examination in May 1971 that the Veteran had current dental issues, history of a kidney stone with negative workup, low back pain on occasion, and foot calluses. Id. at 28-29.

The Veteran first sought care with VA in July 2022, and his current problems included diabetes mellitus. He was followed by private providers and continued to receive consistent VA healthcare throughout the period on appeal. See VBMS entry document type "CAPRI," receipt date 08/13/2025, pgs. 178-179. In September 2022, the Veteran's VA primary care provider diagnosed leg pains as "possible diabetic neurop
 Id. at 30-31. Medical personnel noted on the separation Report of Medical Examination in May 1971 that the Veteran had current dental issues, history of a kidney stone with negative workup, low back pain on occasion, and foot calluses. Id. at 28-29.

The Veteran first sought care with VA in July 2022, and his current problems included diabetes mellitus. He was followed by private providers and continued to receive consistent VA healthcare throughout the period on appeal. See VBMS entry document type "CAPRI," receipt date 08/13/2025, pgs. 178-179. In September 2022, the Veteran's VA primary care provider diagnosed leg pains as "possible diabetic neuropathy." Id. at 168, 171. In July 2024, a VA podiatrist diagnosed "diabetes mellitus with signs of peripheral neuropathy." Id. at 59.

Private medical records show the Veteran's March 2023 and April 2024 annual Medicare examinations include diagnosis of diabetes mellitus without complications. See VBMS entry document type "Medical Treatment Record-Non-Government Facility," receipt date 05/15/2025, pgs. 20, 31. There is no mention of any neuropathy complaints or treatment in the private medical records in the claims file.

To the extent the Veteran contends neuropathy related to diabetes, the Board notes that the Veteran has not claimed and is not service connected for diabetes mellitus.

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of neuropathy 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).

The Veteran has not provided a description of the symptoms he experiences, or even which body part is affected. VA primary care and podiatry providers noted leg pains in September 2022 and July 2024 which they associated with diabetes mellitus, but without a clear diagnosis of neuropathy. Further, despite consistent VA treatment from July 2022 to September 2024 and private Medicare annual examinations in 2023 and 2024, VA and private medical records in the claims file do not contain a diagnosis of neuropathy.

While the Veteran believes there is a current diagnosis of neuropathy, based on his claim, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. The evidence does not show the Veteran has the education, knowledge, or training to make a diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence.

The Board is mindful that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination or medical opinion in connection with claim for service connection for neuropathy. However, the Board finds that the facts of this case do not establish entitlement to a VA examination and/or medical opinion regarding this claim. VA must provide a medical examination and/or medical opinion when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Here, the Veteran has not identified symptoms or the body part affected by neuropathy and the record does not reflect persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability. Thus, the first McLendon element is not met as to the claim for service connection for neuropathy and a VA examination is not warranted.

Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against finding a current neuropathy disability. There is no current diagnosis on record related to neuropathy and the Veteran has not identified the part of the body he contends is affected by neuropathy. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Where the evidence does not support a finding of current disability upon which to predicate a grant of service connection, there can be no valid claim for that benefit. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet.
 as to the claim for service connection for neuropathy and a VA examination is not warranted.

Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against finding a current neuropathy disability. There is no current diagnosis on record related to neuropathy and the Veteran has not identified the part of the body he contends is affected by neuropathy. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Where the evidence does not support a finding of current disability upon which to predicate a grant of service connection, there can be no valid claim for that benefit. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In addition, even assuming, arguendo, that the Veteran has peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities or diabetic neuropathy, those symptoms were clearly attributed to the Veteran's non-service-connected diabetes mellitus.

For the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether service connection for neuropathy is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against service connection. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b), is therefore not for application as to this claim. 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). As such, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against finding a current disability, and service connection for neuropathy must therefore be denied. 

2. Entitlement to service connection for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (a-fib)

3. Entitlement to service connection for gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis

The Veteran contends a-fib and diverticulitis developed during service. See May 2024 Fully Developed Claims. 

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 diagnosis of paroxysmal a-fib, and colon polyps with a reported history of partial colectomy around 1997 due to diverticulitis, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the disabilities began during active service, or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. See VBMS entry document type "CAPRI," receipt date 09/02/2023, pg. 103; VBMS entry document type "CAPRI," receipt date 06/23/2025, pgs. 10, 11, 13. The reasons follow.

Military personnel records show the Veteran initially trained as a security policeman. However, he did not meet the expected standards and was reassigned to an administrative role, serving as a Pass and Household Goods Specialist at Laughlin Air Force Base (AFB), Texas from December 1967 to March 1969. In March 1969, the Veteran was reassigned to Bolling AFB, Washington, D.C. to serve the rest of his enlistment with the Ceremonial Honor Guard. See VBMS entry document type "Military Personnel Record," receipt date 10/12/2021, pgs. 12, 66.

There is no evidence in the claims file that the Veteran served outside the United States. See DD214. Further, a November 2023 VA memorandum concluded that the Veteran did not participate in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) during active military service, including non-deployment related exposures related to his military occupational specialty. 

Service treatment records in the claims file reflect medical care from August 1967 to April 1971 without complaints or treatment related to cardiac or gastrointestinal issues. See VBMS entry document type "STR-Medical," receipt date 05/28/1971, pgs. 34-77. In May 1971, the Veteran indicated on the separation Report of Medical History that he had dental, kidney, back, and foot issues. However, he denied pain or pressure in the chest, palpation or pounding heart, frequent indigestion, and stomach, liver, or intestinal trouble. Id. at 30-31. Medical personnel noted on the separation Report of Medical Examination in May 1971 that the Veteran had current dental issues, history of a kidney stone with negative workup, low back pain on occasion, and foot calluses. However, he had normal clinical evaluations of the heart and abdomen and viscera. Id. at 28-29.

The Veteran first sought care with VA in July 2022. His
 In May 1971, the Veteran indicated on the separation Report of Medical History that he had dental, kidney, back, and foot issues. However, he denied pain or pressure in the chest, palpation or pounding heart, frequent indigestion, and stomach, liver, or intestinal trouble. Id. at 30-31. Medical personnel noted on the separation Report of Medical Examination in May 1971 that the Veteran had current dental issues, history of a kidney stone with negative workup, low back pain on occasion, and foot calluses. However, he had normal clinical evaluations of the heart and abdomen and viscera. Id. at 28-29.

The Veteran first sought care with VA in July 2022. His current problems included paroxysmal a-fib and he reported that, 25 years ago he had a partial colectomy due to diverticulitis. It was later recorded that the Veteran's 2022 colonoscopy was positive for Helicobacter pylori and negative for colon polyps. However, the Veteran reportedly had a history of a precancerous polyp at an unspecified time. See VBMS entry document type "CAPRI," receipt date 08/13/2025, pgs. 143, 178-179. 

Private medical records show the Veteran's March 2023 and April 2024 annual Medicare examinations with diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. See VBMS entry document type "Medical Treatment Record-Non-Government Facility," receipt date 05/15/2025, pgs. 20, 31. 

While the Veteran is competent to report lay symptoms and believes the claimed a-fib and gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis, are related to his service, the evidence does not show he has the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to etiology, diagnosis, or the onset date of a medical disability. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The Board is mindful that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination or medical opinion in connection with claim for service connection for a-fib or gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis. However, the Board finds that the facts of this case do not establish entitlement to a VA examination and/or medical opinion regarding this claim. VA must provide a medical examination and/or medical opinion when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). 

Here, the evidence does not establish that a-fib or diverticulitis occurred in service. The Veteran also failed to identify an event, injury, or disease that occurred in service to which he attributes his claimed disabilities. After a review of the claims file, the Board finds there is no explicit evidence of a nexus or any theory of chain-of-causation reasonably raised from the record. Thus, the second and third McLendon elements are not met, and a VA examination is not warranted. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (distinguishing cases where only a conclusory generalized statement is provided by the veteran and rejecting the theory that medical examinations are to be routinely and virtually automatically provided to all veterans in disability cases involving nexus issues).

For the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether service connection for a-fib or gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis, is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against service connection. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b), is therefore not for application as to this claim. 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). In short, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against finding that a-fib or gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis began during active service, or are otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. Thus, service connection for a-fib and gastrointestinal condition, including colon pol
asively weighs against service connection. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b), is therefore not for application as to this claim. 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). In short, the Board finds that the evidence weighs against finding that a-fib or gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis began during active service, or are otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. Thus, service connection for a-fib and gastrointestinal condition, including colon polyps and diverticulitis, must therefore be denied.  

 

L.M. YASUI

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Spears, J.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.