Back to BVA DecisionsDENIEDSpecial Benefit NO SPECIAL BENEFIT Docket No. 250924-580054
SPINAL FUSION
T. MAINELLI · 2026 · Case ID: A26037508
Summary
The veteran, who served from August 1986 to January 1988, appeals the denial of service connection for treatment purposes for a spine disability and migraine headaches. The veteran was discharged under other than honorable conditions for misconduct. The Board's review was limited to evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 Agency of Original Jurisdiction decision. The veteran claims a low back injury from working in confined spaces and asserts migraine headaches were caused by military service, but provided no further details. The separation examination in December 1987 showed no back or head complaints, and the veteran denied frequent headaches or recurrent back pain. Imaging studies from 2021 and 2023 showed cervicalgia with mild arthrosis and moderate hypo lordosis, but no other diagnosed spine or head disability. No medical evidence was submitted to establish a nexus between the current conditions and service. The Board found the evidence persuasive against a finding of persistent or recurrent symptoms since service, and therefore a VA examination was not warranted. The available evidence is against the claim for service connection for treatment purposes, and the appeal is denied.
Rationale
No in-service complaints or treatment for spine disability.; Separation exam showed no back complaints.; No evidence of current diagnosed spine disability other than cervicalgia.; No medical evidence supports nexus to service.
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26037508 Decision Date: 04/22/26 Archive Date: 04/22/26 DOCKET NO. 250924-580054 DATE: April 22, 2026 ORDER Service connection for treatment purposes only under 38 USC Chapter 17, for a disability of the spine is denied. Service connection for treatment purposes only under 38 USC Chapter 17, for migraine headaches is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The appellant had no back or head complaints upon discharge from service. 2. There is no evidence of record pertaining to the appellant's state of health between his discharge in 1988 and the imaging studies in 2021 and 2023, a period of time exceeding thirty years. 3. There is nothing in the record to support a nexus between the appellant's currently reported low back pain and his headache pain and his period of service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for treatment purposes only under 38 USC Chapter 17 for a disability of the spine have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.360. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for treatment purposes only under 38 USC chapter 17 for migraine headaches have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.360. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The appellant served on active duty from August 1986 to January 1988. He was discharged under other than honorable conditions for misconduct involving commission of a serious offense. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2025 decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The appellant requested Higher Level Review of this decision in April 2025. The Higher Level Review was accomplished in July 2025. The appellant than filed a VA Form 10182 with the Board in August 2025. He requested direct review by a Veterans Law Judge. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 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 appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, he 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. The appellant is seeking access to VA medical treatment for disability of the spine and for migraine headaches. Although he submitted a claim for disability of his lumbar spine, he submitted medical evidence showing disability of his cervical spine. For this reason, the Board has expanded the issue on appeal to include the veteran's entire spine. Because he was discharged under other than honorable conditions for misconduct involving commission of a serious offense, the VA undertook an administrative review of his eligibility for VA benefits in May 2018. The reviewers concluded that the appellant's under other than honorable conditions character of discharge is a bar to most VA benefits. He was deemed, however, eligible for health care and related benefit under Chapter 17 of Title 38, United States Code, for any disability or disabilities incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during his active service. With this in mind, the appellant asserts that he injured his low back while working in the boiler room, crawling in small spaces, etc. On his application, he wrote that he "found out that a disc in his lower lumbar spine was slightly bulging out." He also asserts that his frequent migraine headaches were caused by exposure during military service. He has not provided any further details regarding why he believes these medical disabilities are related to service. Once the evidence has been assembled, it is the Board's responsibility to evaluate the record. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). A claimant bears the evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the benefit sought. See Fagan v. Shin With this in mind, the appellant asserts that he injured his low back while working in the boiler room, crawling in small spaces, etc. On his application, he wrote that he "found out that a disc in his lower lumbar spine was slightly bulging out." He also asserts that his frequent migraine headaches were caused by exposure during military service. He has not provided any further details regarding why he believes these medical disabilities are related to service. Once the evidence has been assembled, it is the Board's responsibility to evaluate the record. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). A claimant bears the evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the benefit sought. See Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (2009). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). The benefit of the doubt applies when the evidence for and against is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal," but does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2021) (en banc). Health care and related benefits authorized by Chapter 17 of title 38 U.S.C. shall be provided to certain former servicepersons with administrative discharges under other than honorable conditions for any disability incurred or aggravated during active military, naval, or air service in line of duty. 38 C.F.R. § 3.360 (a). With certain exceptions, such benefits shall be furnished for any disability incurred or aggravated during a period of service terminated by a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Such benefits may not be furnished for any disability incurred or aggravated during a period of service terminated by a bad conduct discharge or when one of the bars listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(c) applies. 38 C.F.R. § 3.360(b). In making determinations of health-care eligibility, the same criteria will be used as is now applicable to determinations of service incurrence and in line of duty when there is no character of discharge bar. 38 C.F.R. § 3.360(c). Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in the active military, naval, air, or space service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The issues below are discussed in the context of whether service connection is warranted for purposes of health care and related benefits under the above provisions. Review of the appellant's service treatment records reveals no complaints or treatment involving the veteran's back or headaches. During a routine chest X-ray in December 1987, the appellant's bony thorax was noted to have been intact. The report of the separation examination in December 1987 shows no complaints or findings involving the appellant's back or head. On the medical history portion of the examination, he specifically denied frequent or severe headache, dizziness or fainting spells, sinusitis, head injury, broken bones, and recurrent back pain. The examiner noted that the veteran had, "no medical problems," and that the appellant was qualified for separation. On his November 2024 application for service connection for medical treatment purposes, the appellant did not report receiving any medical care at any point in time. He later submitted a medical release form for Houston MRI and Diagnostics. When VA obtained records from this provider, however, the records pertained only to imaging of the appellant's cervical spine taken in October 2023 and to his left knee in May 2021. The cervical spine imaging was interpreted as showing cervicalgia with mild arthrosis of the mid to lower cervical spine, and moderate hypo lordosis. Unfortunately, no other medical evidence has been submitted to establish the presence of current disabilities involving the lumbar spine or headaches. Similarly, no medical evidence has been submitted to support a possible nexus to service. While the appellant is competent to state that he experiences pain in his back and head, he is not shown to possess the medical expertise necessary to render medical Houston MRI and Diagnostics. When VA obtained records from this provider, however, the records pertained only to imaging of the appellant's cervical spine taken in October 2023 and to his left knee in May 2021. The cervical spine imaging was interpreted as showing cervicalgia with mild arthrosis of the mid to lower cervical spine, and moderate hypo lordosis. Unfortunately, no other medical evidence has been submitted to establish the presence of current disabilities involving the lumbar spine or headaches. Similarly, no medical evidence has been submitted to support a possible nexus to service. While the appellant is competent to state that he experiences pain in his back and head, he is not shown to possess the medical expertise necessary to render medical diagnoses or to suggest a medical nexus to service. The appellant was not afforded a VA examination for these claims, and a medical opinion was not obtained. VA must provide an examination or opinion with regard to claims for disability compensation when there is competent evidence of a disability (or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability) that may be associated with an in-service event, injury, or disease, but there is insufficient information to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The persuasive evidence is against a finding of persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability since service. In this respect, the Board has no reason to doubt the appellant's assertions at separation wherein he denied frequent or severe headache as well as recurrent back pain. There is also no non-speculative evidence suggesting a possible association with service as opposed to at most a conclusory generalized statement alleging nexus. Consequently, a VA examination or opinion was not warranted with regard to these claims. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (a conclusory generalized lay statement alleging nexus between a current disability and service does not meet the standard to warrant a VA examination). In short, the appellant's separation examination indicates that he had no back or head complaints upon discharge from service. There is no evidence whatsoever pertaining to his physical condition between his discharge in 1988 and the imaging studies in 2021 and 2023, a period of time exceeding thirty years. Other than the cervicalgia, there is no evidence showing a diagnosed disability of the spine or the head. Lastly, there is nothing to support a nexus between the appellant's currently reported low back pain and his headache pain and his period of service. Continued next page The available evidence is against the claim for service connection for treatment purposes. As explained above, the Board is limited to review of the evidence of record in March 2025. The appeal must be denied. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Harter, Heather J. 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.