HIP IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The veteran served from October 1976 to February 1977. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2021 rating decision denying service connection for multiple conditions. The veteran claimed disabilities related to the left hip, bilateral ankles, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, heart, insomnia, sexual arousal, gynecological conditions, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension (HTN), right hip disorder, bilateral foot disorder (including plantar fasciitis, pes planus, and heel spurs), and hypothyroidism. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the May 2021 decision, as well as evidence submitted by the veteran or her representative at a June 2025 Board hearing. For most claimed conditions, the Board found no current diagnosis or evidence of functional impairment, and no indication of in-service incurrence or aggravation. The Board noted that while the veteran claimed certain conditions, as a layperson, she could not competently provide medical diagnoses or etiologies. The Board also found that the duty to assist was not triggered for VA examinations as the initial evidence did not suggest a link to service. For rheumatoid arthritis and HTN, the Board found no in-service diagnosis or continuity of symptomatology, and the evidence did not support presumptive service connection. The Board denied all claims for service connection.

Rationale

No current diagnosis or functional impairment found.; No in-service event or continuity of symptomatology.; Lay statements not competent to address medical matters.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26036902
Decision Date: 04/21/26	Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 210904-183001
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for left hip disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral ankle disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for heart disorder is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for disorder manifested by insomnia is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for sexual arousal disorder is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for gynecological disorder is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension (HTN) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right hip disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism is denied. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At no time during the pendency of his claim does the Veteran have a current left hip disability, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing a claim.

2. At no time during the pendency of his claim does the Veteran have a current ankle disability, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing a claim.

3. At no time during the pendency of his claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of lower extremity radiculopathy, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing a claim.

4. At no time during the pendency of his claim does the Veteran have a current heart disability, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing a claim.

5. At no time during the pendency of his claim does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of a disability manifested by insomnia, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing a claim.

6. At no time during the pendency of his claim does the Veteran have a current sexual arousal disability, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing a claim.

7. At no time during the pendency of his claim does the Veteran have a current gynecological disability, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the Veteran's filing a claim.

8. The Veteran's rheumatoid arthritis is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to military service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year following separation from service. 

9. The Veteran's HTN is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to military service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year following separation from service. 

10. A right hip disorder, to include bursitis, is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to military service.

11. A bilateral foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis, pes planus, and heel spurs, is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to military service.

12. The Veteran's hypothyroidism is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to military service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for left hip disorder have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for bilateral ankle disorder have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

4. The criteria for service connection for a heart disorder have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for disorder manifested by insomnia have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for sexual arousal disorder have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3
 3.303, 3.310.

4. The criteria for service connection for a heart disorder have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for disorder manifested by insomnia have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for service connection for sexual arousal disorder have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for service connection for gynecological disorder have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

8. The criteria for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

9. The criteria for service connection for HTN have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

10. The criteria for service connection for right hip disorder have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

11. The criteria for service connection for bilateral foot disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

12. The criteria for service connection for hypothyroidism have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1976 to February 1977.  This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2021 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). 

In the September 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held in June 2025, a transcript of which is associated with the record.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or her representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the 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.

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. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  Generally, service connection requires three elements: (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
al Claim are included with this decision.

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. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  Generally, service connection requires three elements: (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 for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

An award of service connection requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service.  Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992).  Under applicable regulation, the term "disability" means impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries and their residual conditions.  38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296 (1991); Allen, 7 Vet. App. 439; Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the term "disability" as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability," and held that "pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability").  

In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time he files his claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim.  However, in Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013), the Court held that when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a claimant filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990).

1. Entitlement to service connection for left hip disorder. 

2. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral ankle disorder.

3. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, to include as secondary to service-connected disability.

4. Entitlement to service connection for heart disorder.

5. Entitlement to service connection for disorder manifested by insomnia.

6. Entitlement to service connection for sexual arousal disorder.

7. Entitlement to service connection for gynecological disorder.

The Veteran contends she has disabilities referrable to the left hip, bilateral ankle, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, heart, insomnia, sexual arousal, and a gynecological condition related to her military service.

As to the first element required for service connection, the Veteran must show a current disability.

The Board notes that for the issue of bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, the May 2021 rating decision made a favorable finding that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a disability.  However, the confirmed diagnosis of thoracic scoliosis with degenerative arthritis from a May 2021 VA medical examination was clearly for the primary service-connected disability.  Further, the May 2021 VA examination report indicates the Veteran did not have radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy.

With regard to a heart disability, the Board notes the private medical treatment records submitted after the June 2025 Board hearing show a past and current medical history of heart disease.  Specifically, the box for "heart disease" has been checked; however, the Board
 bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, the May 2021 rating decision made a favorable finding that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a disability.  However, the confirmed diagnosis of thoracic scoliosis with degenerative arthritis from a May 2021 VA medical examination was clearly for the primary service-connected disability.  Further, the May 2021 VA examination report indicates the Veteran did not have radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy.

With regard to a heart disability, the Board notes the private medical treatment records submitted after the June 2025 Board hearing show a past and current medical history of heart disease.  Specifically, the box for "heart disease" has been checked; however, the Board notes such does not provide any additional contextual information, and there is no medical evidence of record referrable to a heart disorder.  As such, it appears this information was based on the Veteran's self-report.  

Additionally, the Veteran's medical treatment records available for review within the proper evidentiary windows do not document diagnoses referrable to a left hip disorder, bilateral ankle disorder, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, disorder manifested by insomnia, heart disorder, sexual arousal disorder, or gynecological disorder.  

The Board acknowledges that in the absence of a diagnosis, evidence of pain which results in functional impairment can constitute a disability. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018). However, the available medical evidence does not reflect complaints of or treatment for the left hip, an ankle, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, insomnia, the heart, sexual arousal, or a gynecological disorder.  The Veteran has not identified the nature of the claimed disorders or any treatment or diagnosis thereof, other than rheumatoid arthritis.  

As will be further addressed below, the medical treatment records submitted following the rating decision on appeal do not specify the exact joints affected by the Veteran's rheumatoid arthritis.  While the Veteran may be competent to identify observable symptoms of joint pain, and the functional effect such symptoms have on her earning capacity, she has not done so.  Her submissions have asserted that she is entitled to these benefits and that she disagrees with the AOJ's ruling on her claims.  However, they do not further provide bases for her claims.

Likewise, the Board has considered the Veteran's assertions as to the presence of these disorders; however, as a lay person, she does not have the requisite training and experience necessary to address such complex medical matters.  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis).  In this regard, the diagnoses of such involve medical subjects concerning internal physical processes extending beyond immediately observable cause-and-effect relationships.  Therefore, such matters may not be competently addressed by lay statements.  See Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462 (2007) (explaining that while the claimant is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg or varicose veins, the claimant is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions).  Therefore, the Board affords the Veteran's lay statements regarding any current diagnoses little probative weight.  

The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with her claims for service connection for a left hip disorder, bilateral ankle disorder, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, heart disorder, disorder manifested by insomnia, sexual arousal disorder, or gynecological disorder.  However, the Board finds the low threshold for the duty to afford an examination was not met at the time of the rating decision on appeal.  Specifically, the lay and medical evidence did not support the presence of current disabilities or that any such disabilities were related to service.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006).  Thus, there was no pre-decisional duty to assist error in the failure to afford the Veteran a VA examination, and a remand on this basis is not warranted or permissible under the AMA.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the competent, probative evidence persuasively weighs against the claims for service connection for a left hip disorder, bilateral ankle disorder, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, a heart disorder, a disorder manifested by insomnia, a sexual arousal disorder, and a gynecological disorder.  As the evidence is not in relative equipoise, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply, and the claims must be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F
).  Thus, there was no pre-decisional duty to assist error in the failure to afford the Veteran a VA examination, and a remand on this basis is not warranted or permissible under the AMA.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the competent, probative evidence persuasively weighs against the claims for service connection for a left hip disorder, bilateral ankle disorder, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, a heart disorder, a disorder manifested by insomnia, a sexual arousal disorder, and a gynecological disorder.  As the evidence is not in relative equipoise, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply, and the claims must be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

8. Entitlement to service connection for rheumatoid arthritis.

9. Entitlement to service connection for HTN.

The Veteran contends she has rheumatoid arthritis and HTN due to military service.  

The Board notes the Veteran's February 2021 VA Form 526EZ claim form stated she has "skeletal arthritis entire joint pain."  At the June 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran's representative clarified that the Veteran has a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.  The Board has characterized the claim accordingly herein.    

Certain chronic diseases of the nervous system, like arthritis and HTN, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

After the June 2025 Board hearing and within the appropriate evidentiary window, the Veteran's representative submitted private medical treatment records showing the Veteran has a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis.  Upon review, the Board notes the earliest notation of the Veteran's diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis is December 19, 2017.  The Board also notes there are no additional details as to exactly which joints are affected by the Veteran's rheumatoid arthritis.  

The private medical treatment records submitted after the June 2025 Board hearing also document a diagnosis of essential HTN on April 1, 2021.

As to an in-service injury or event, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not contain documentation of arthritis, HTN, and/or symptoms associated therewith.  There is a February 2, 1977, Report of Medical Examination and a February 2, 1977, Report of Medical History that show the box "no" was checked for "swollen or painful joints."  The Veteran's blood pressure reading was noted as 120/80, which is not considered to be an elevated reading.  

The Board notes the Veteran's testimony at the June 2025 Board hearing that she had high blood pressure in service and was put on medication as a result.  Notably, the STRs do not confirm her account.  

The Veteran also testified that she began seeing a doctor between 1980 to 1982 regarding her HTN.  However, private medical treatment records associated with the Veteran's claims file do not include such documentation, and the Veteran did not identify such records prior to the rating decision on appeal.  Therefore, such cannot serve as the basis for a pre-decisional duty to assist error warranting remand.

She also testified to weather conditions of snow and cold while she was in basic training; that she was out in the elements all the time; that there were drills every day; and that as she was a clerk, she typed for hours.  

As noted above, arthritis and HTN are considered chronic disabilities.  However, the record does not demonstrate a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and/or HTN within one year of separation, nor does it establish a continuity of symptomatology from service to the present.  The Veteran's post-military medical treatment records begin documentation in 2006, over four decades after she left military service.  The lapse of time between service separation and the earliest documentation of a current disability is a factor for consideration in deciding a service connection claim. The Veteran has offered no lay statements of such continuity, and the Veteran's medical treatment records do not support such.  Therefore, presumptive service connection is not warranted.     

The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with her claims for service connection for
 chronic disabilities.  However, the record does not demonstrate a diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis and/or HTN within one year of separation, nor does it establish a continuity of symptomatology from service to the present.  The Veteran's post-military medical treatment records begin documentation in 2006, over four decades after she left military service.  The lapse of time between service separation and the earliest documentation of a current disability is a factor for consideration in deciding a service connection claim. The Veteran has offered no lay statements of such continuity, and the Veteran's medical treatment records do not support such.  Therefore, presumptive service connection is not warranted.     

The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with her claims for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis and HTN.  However, the Board finds the duty to afford her an examination was not triggered by the evidence of record at the time of the rating decision on appeal.  Specifically, the evidence did not show that the claimed disabilities, or symptoms thereof, may be associated with the Veteran's active service.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 81.  Thus, a remand for a VA examination is not warranted or permitted under the AMA.

Again, the Board has considered the Veteran's assertions as to the etiology of her rheumatoid arthritis and HTN.  However, as a lay person, she does not have the requisite training and experience necessary to address such complex medical matters.  See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1376-77.  In this regard, the etiologies of such involve medical subjects concerning internal physical processes extending beyond immediately observable cause-and-effect relationships.  Therefore, such matters may not be competently addressed by lay statements.  See Woehlaert, 21 Vet. App. at 462.  Therefore, the Board affords the Veteran's lay statements regarding the etiologies of her rheumatoid arthritis and HTN no probative weight.  

Accordingly, the Board finds that the probative, competent evidence persuasively weighs against the claims for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis and HTN. As the evidence is not in relative equipoise, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply, and the appeals must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

10. Entitlement to service connection for right hip disorder, to include bursitis.

11. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral foot disability, to include plantar fasciitis, pes planus, and heel spurs. 

12. Entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism.  

The Veteran contends she has disabilities of her right hip, feet, and hypothyroidism that are due to military service.

The Veteran's representative submitted private treatment records after the June 2025 Board hearing and within the appropriate evidentiary window.  The private treatment records show a diagnosis of bursitis of the right hip, including right hip pain.  

With regard to the Veteran's bilateral foot disability, there is documentation of diagnoses of bilateral plantar fasciitis, bilateral pes planus, and bilateral heel spurs.  The Board has expanded the claim on appeal accordingly. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (when a claimant makes a claim, he is seeking service connection for symptoms regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled).  

Private treatment records also show a diagnosis of hypothyroidism for the purpose of a current disability.

At the June 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that she had aching joints in service and that she went to sick call for her hips and ankles.  However, the Veteran's STRs are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or diagnoses referrable to the Veteran's hips, feet, hypothyroidism, and any associated symptoms. 

The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with her claims for service connection.  However, the Board finds the duty to assist was not triggered by the evidence of record at the time of the rating decision on appeal.  Specifically, the evidence did not show that the claimed disabilities, or symptoms thereof, may be associated with the Veteran's active service.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 81.  In particular, the Veteran had not provided any information as to why she believed her current disabilities were due to service or any descriptions thereof in relation to her military service.  Thus, a remand for a VA examination is not necessary or permitted under the AMA.

Again, the Board has considered the Veteran's later assertions as to the etiology of any current right hip disorder
 duty to assist was not triggered by the evidence of record at the time of the rating decision on appeal.  Specifically, the evidence did not show that the claimed disabilities, or symptoms thereof, may be associated with the Veteran's active service.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 81.  In particular, the Veteran had not provided any information as to why she believed her current disabilities were due to service or any descriptions thereof in relation to her military service.  Thus, a remand for a VA examination is not necessary or permitted under the AMA.

Again, the Board has considered the Veteran's later assertions as to the etiology of any current right hip disorder, foot disorder, and hypothyroidism.  However, as a lay person, she does not have the requisite training and experience necessary to address such complex medical matters.  See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1376-77.  In this regard, the etiologies of such involve medical subjects concerning internal physical processes extending beyond immediately observable cause-and-effect relationships.  Therefore, such matters may not be competently addressed by lay statements.  See Woehlaert, 21 Vet. App. at 462.  Therefore, the Board affords the Veteran's lay statements provided after the rating decision on appeal no probative weight.  

Here the probative, competent the evidence persuasively weighs against the claims.  38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2015), Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54-56. Therefore, there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in the Veteran's favor, and the appeals are denied. 

   

 

 

M. M. Celli

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	R. Smith, Associate Counsel

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.