LUMBOSACRAL STRAIN

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from August 2015 to January 2022, appeals the denial of service connection for a back condition and bradycardia. The Veteran contends that both conditions began during basic training in 2015. The Board reviewed the record, noting that the agency of original jurisdiction had already conceded evidence of current disabilities for both conditions. For the back condition, the Veteran provided a credible statement detailing the physical rigors of basic training, including running, marching with heavy gear, and carrying significant weight, which led to the onset of back pain. The Board found this statement sufficient to establish in-service incurrence and continuity of symptomology, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor to grant service connection. For bradycardia, the Veteran reported experiencing chest pains during training, which he initially dismissed as normal. While acknowledging evidence against the claim, the Board found a private medical opinion persuasive, stating the heart condition was likely fitness-related secondary to military training and MOS demands. This opinion, supported by a thorough rationale, led the Board to find it at least as likely as not that the bradycardia began during service and persisted. Consequently, service connection for bradycardia was also granted.

Rationale

Current disability conceded by AOJ (lumbosacral strain); Veteran's credible report of in-service pain during basic training; Resolving reasonable doubt in Veteran's favor

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037004
Decision Date: 04/21/26	Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 240630-451732
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a back condition is granted. 

Service connection for bradycardia is granted. 

FINDING OF FACT

Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his back condition and bradycardia began during a period of active duty service and persisted thereafter. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for a back condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for bradycardia have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from August 2015 to January 2016 followed by periods of reserve service until January 2022. 

In the June 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 April 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[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. 

In April 2025, the Board denied the abovementioned claims. In turn, the Veteran appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a November 2025 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) agreed to by the Veteran and the Secretary of VA and vacated the April 2025 Board decision. The parties to the JMR agreed that the Board erred by providing an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for its determinations. Having reviewed the JMR and reconsidered the record, the Board finds that the Veteran's claims should be granted. 

1. Service connection for a back condition is granted. 

The Veteran is seeking service connection for a back condition that he contends began during active duty in 2015. 

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 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).

To begin, the AOJ has already conceded evidence of a current disability. Specifically, the Veteran was diagnosed with a lumbosacral strain. The Board sees no reason to disturb this favorable finding. As such, the first element of the service connection analysis has been met. 

With respect to an in-service incurrence, the Board relies on the Veteran's credible report that he experienced back pain during basic training as related to the rigors of military training. In this regard, he stated the following: 

Prior to enlisting in the Army, I lived a mostly sedentary lifestyle as a college student. I did not do any preparatory physical [c]onditioning to prepare for military training. The physical training requirements at basic training were much higher and more rigorous than anything I had done prior. In training, we ran almost every day[] and marched with ruck sacks or assault packs and combat equipment. On average, I carried approximately 30 pounds worth of combat gear on my back[] and carried an additional 10-15 pounds worth of protective gear and weaponry with me for training. During basic training, we ruck marched up to 12 miles, often over rugged terrain, on a regular
 regard, he stated the following: 

Prior to enlisting in the Army, I lived a mostly sedentary lifestyle as a college student. I did not do any preparatory physical [c]onditioning to prepare for military training. The physical training requirements at basic training were much higher and more rigorous than anything I had done prior. In training, we ran almost every day[] and marched with ruck sacks or assault packs and combat equipment. On average, I carried approximately 30 pounds worth of combat gear on my back[] and carried an additional 10-15 pounds worth of protective gear and weaponry with me for training. During basic training, we ruck marched up to 12 miles, often over rugged terrain, on a regular basis. The high pace of physical training continued throughout basic training . . . As a result of the constant running and marching, as well as the necessity of carrying heavy gear, I began to notice pain in my back. I noticed the pain mostly during the duty day, when I was wearing my issued armored vest and assault pack or ruck sack . . . The Back pain and discomfort I started feeling in basic training has gotten worse since I left active duty.

Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds his statement regarding continuity of symptomology sufficient to satisfy the third element of the service connection analysis.  Accordingly, the claim is granted.

2. Service connection for bradycardia is granted. 

The Veteran is seeking service connection for bradycardia. He contends that this condition began during basic training. 

In the April 2024 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ conceded evidence of a current disability. Specifically, bradycardia and unstable angina. Again, the Board finds no reason to disturb this favorable finding. 

Regarding an in-service incurrence, the Board finds credible the Veteran's statement that he experienced chest pain during basic training. In a January 2023 statement, he stated: "[T]he cardiovascular training that is inherent to military training caused me to start experiencing chest pains during Advanced Individual Training. During training, I noticed a twisting pain in my chest, but I never considered seeking medical attention or assistance for it, because I assumed it was a normal part of physical training. I had never exercised on a regular basis before joining the Army, and I did not know what was normal and what was not. 

With respect to a nexus, while there is evidence against the claim, the Board finds the February 2024 private medical opinion persuasive. Therein, a clinician opined that the Veteran's heart condition is "likely fitness-related secondary to military training" and the demands of his Military Occupational Specialty of Cargo Specialist. This opinion is supported by a detailed and thorough rationale.  Thus, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that his bradycardia began during active service and persisted thereafter. 

Accordingly, the claim is granted.  

 

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Graison-McBride, Kimberly F.

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.