VERTIGO

Summary

The veteran, who served from August 1983 to August 2003, appeals the denial of service connection for a disability manifested by dizziness. The veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement via VA Form 10182, electing the Direct Review docket, meaning only evidence of record prior to the February 2024 agency of original jurisdiction decision could be considered. The veteran claimed dizziness, lightheadedness, nausea, vomiting, difficulty sleeping, lack of appetite, and trouble concentrating, asserting these symptoms caused him to miss six weeks of work. He did not specify the onset of dizziness or any treatment facilities in his claim. The Board reviewed private treatment records and military treatment facility records, finding no diagnosis of dizziness or reports of dizziness during treatment. The Board noted the veteran's lay testimony regarding symptoms and missed work but found it unclear when this occurred and which symptoms caused the missed work, rendering the claim for functional impairment of earning capacity insufficient. The Board concluded that the veteran does not have a current diagnosed disability manifested by dizziness, and therefore, the criteria for service connection were not met. The Board denied service connection for a disability manifested by dizziness.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of dizziness; Insufficient evidence of functional impairment; Lay testimony regarding symptoms and missed work was unclear

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26036908
Decision Date: 04/21/26	Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 240307-557330
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by dizziness is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a disability manifested by dizziness at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for a disability manifested by dizziness are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1983 to August 2003.

In the March 2024 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 February 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 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 for entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by dizziness, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by dizziness.

The Veteran seeks service connection for a disability manifested by dizziness.  

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).

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 the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a disability manifested by dizziness 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).

In his September 2023 VA Form 21-526EZ, the Veteran did not specify the onset of his dizziness or identify any facilities at which he was treated for dizziness.  He asserted that his dizziness was caused by an in-service event, injury or exposure, but did not specify any specific event, injury, or exposure. He described that he had been lightheaded, nauseous, experienced vomiting, and had difficulty with his sleeping and appetite.  He also reported he had to miss several weeks of work because of his symptoms and had trouble concentrating due to dizziness.  

Private treatment records dated through September 2023 are associated with the record.  However, these records do not show a diagnosis of a disability manifested by dizziness or reflect that the Veteran reported having dizziness during his treatment. Military treatment facility (MTF) records were added to the claims file in September 2023; these document the Veteran's denial of dizziness at visits in August 2023. Further, review of private records from a state hospital system regional hospital center show no reports of dizziness.

VA must provide a medical examination or opinion when the following elements are established: 1) competent evidence of a current disability or recurrent or persistent symptom of a disability; 2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; 3) an indication
3 are associated with the record.  However, these records do not show a diagnosis of a disability manifested by dizziness or reflect that the Veteran reported having dizziness during his treatment. Military treatment facility (MTF) records were added to the claims file in September 2023; these document the Veteran's denial of dizziness at visits in August 2023. Further, review of private records from a state hospital system regional hospital center show no reports of dizziness.

VA must provide a medical examination or opinion when the following elements are established: 1) competent evidence of a current disability or recurrent or persistent symptom of a disability; 2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; 3) an indication that the claimed condition may be associated with the Veteran's service or a current service-connected disability; and 4) insufficient medical evidence to decide the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Here, there is no evidence of a current diagnosed condition manifested by dizziness. Thus, lacking evidence of a current diagnosis, the "low" threshold for ordering an examination was not met prior to the rating decision on appeal.  See McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 81.

While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of a disability manifested by dizziness, he is not competent (meaning possessing the requisite formal education or training provided to medical professionals) to provide a diagnosis in this case. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. 

Finally, the Veteran contended that his dizziness and other symptoms (lightheadedness, nausea, vomiting, difficulty sleeping, lack of appetite) caused him to miss six weeks of work. However, it is unclear when he missed such a period of work, and it is unclear which symptoms resulted in the missed work. Thus, notwithstanding the Veteran's contention that his dizziness caused problems concentrating while at work, the Board finds that the evidence is insufficient to establish functional impairment of earning capacity due to dizziness, as contemplated in Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

For these reasons, the appeal for service connection for a disability manifested by dizziness must be denied. In reaching the conclusions stated above, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine.  As the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other, the doctrine is not for application.  See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

J. Kirby

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Struening, Eric

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.