INTERVERTEBRAL DISC SYNDROME

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from March 1986 to March 1990 and again from January 1991 to March 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for a back disability. The Veteran contends that his current back condition, diagnosed as a bulging disc at L5-S1, is due to his military occupational specialty as a combat engineer, which involved heavy lifting, prolonged marching, and carrying heavy equipment. The Board noted that the AOJ had previously found a diagnosis of bulging disc and evidence of in-service complaints of low back pain in October 1989. However, a September 2021 VA examination found no nexus to service, citing a 23-year gap between service and diagnosis without chronological evidence. Following a March 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran submitted a private medical opinion from Kensington Medical Services, which detailed how the Veteran's combat engineer duties likely caused repetitive stress and microtrauma to his lumbar spine, leading to disc bulging. This private opinion concluded it was at least as likely as not that the back disability resulted directly from his service. The Board found the evidence to be in equipoise, applying the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, and granted service connection for the back disability.

Rationale

AOJ found diagnosis of bulging disc L5-S1; AOJ found qualifying in-service event/complaints of low back pain; Private medical opinion linked back disability to combat engineer duties; Evidence found in equipoise; Benefit of the doubt applied

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037673
Decision Date: 04/22/26	Archive Date: 04/22/26

DOCKET NO. 210924-187776
DATE: April 22, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his back disability is at least as likely as not related to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a back disability have been 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 March 1986 to March 1990 and from January 1991 to March 1991.

In the September 24, 2021, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket.  A Board hearing was held on March 25, 2025.  

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran 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. 

The Board notes that the March 2025 Board Hearing addressed two dockets stemming from separate Notices of Disagreement.  Therefore, the current decision will only address the claim subject of the September 2021 AMA Notice of Disagreement.  

1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability.

The Veteran contends his current back disability is due to active service.  

Specifically, he contends the combination of heavy lifting and activities that went along with his military occupational specialty of combat engineer.  See March 2025 Board Hearing.  

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).

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA.  VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record.  Where 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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391, 1395 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Initially, under the AMA, the Board is bound by the favorable findings made by the AOJ in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error.  38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).  In the September 2021 rating decision, the AOJ found a diagnosis of bulging disc L5-S1.  The AOJ also found the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service.  Service treatment records show complaints of low back pain on October 5, 1989.  Therefore, the Board will not overturn these favorable findings of fact.  

The Veteran was provided with a VA medical opinion for his back in September 2021.  The examiner noted that the Veteran left service in 1991 and the bulging disc diagnosis was made as of 2014.  There was 23 years between the Veteran's service and the time of diagnosis with no chronological evidence by the medical records.  Therefore, a nexus cannot be established and is therefore less likely than not incurred in or caused by service.  

(Continued on the next page)

?

Following
 qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service.  Service treatment records show complaints of low back pain on October 5, 1989.  Therefore, the Board will not overturn these favorable findings of fact.  

The Veteran was provided with a VA medical opinion for his back in September 2021.  The examiner noted that the Veteran left service in 1991 and the bulging disc diagnosis was made as of 2014.  There was 23 years between the Veteran's service and the time of diagnosis with no chronological evidence by the medical records.  Therefore, a nexus cannot be established and is therefore less likely than not incurred in or caused by service.  

(Continued on the next page)

?

Following the March 2025 Board Hearing, the Veteran submitted a private medical opinion in support of his claim.  See June 2025 Letter, Kensington Medical Services.  They noted that the Veteran's combat engineer duties involved heavy lifting, prolonged marching, running, and carrying heavy equipment on uneven terrain, which are established risk factors for low back pain and lumbar disc degeneration.  These activities caused repetitive mechanical stress and microtrauma to the lumbar spine, leading to disc bulging and vertebral height loss.  Overall, the examiner opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's back disability is a direct result of his service as a combat engineer. 

Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current back disability is related to service.  With a current back disability and credible lay statements of record that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had onset during service, the Board resolves all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and finds that service connection for a back disability is warranted.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

John J. Crowley

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Cochran, Laura

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.