LUMBOSACRAL STRAIN

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the Army Reserve from March 1974 to August 1974, appeals the denial of service connection for asthma and the initial grant of service connection for a lumbosacral strain and left lower extremity radiculopathy. The Veteran's claims for a lumbosacral strain and left lower extremity radiculopathy were granted. The Board found that the Veteran's lower back disability was causally related to a lumbar strain during active duty for training (ACDUTRA) in July 1988, applying the benefit of the doubt due to approximate balance in the evidence. The Board also found the left lower extremity radiculopathy to be secondary to the lumbosacral strain, supported by a positive VA medical opinion. The claim for asthma was denied. The Board found clear and unmistakable evidence that the Veteran had pre-existing asthma prior to service, rebutting the presumption of soundness. Furthermore, the Board found no evidence of in-service aggravation of the asthma, noting the lack of treatment records and the Veteran's conflicting statements about symptom onset and treatment, which diminished her credibility regarding the asthma claim. The Veteran's assertion of secondary aggravation of asthma due to other service-connected disabilities was also denied due to lack of evidence or theory.

Rationale

Current disability established by March 2024 VA exam; In-service injury in July 1988 confirmed by STR; Benefit of doubt applied due to approximate balance of evidence

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038181
Decision Date: 04/23/26	Archive Date: 04/23/26

DOCKET NO. 250812-576735
DATE: April 23, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral strain is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, to include as secondary to a lumbosacral strain, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for asthma is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record is at least in approximate balance to show that the Veteran was serving on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) at the time when she was treated for a lower back injury in July 1988.

2. The Veteran's lumbosacral strain is causally related to a lower back injury during ACDUTRA. 

3. The Veteran's left lower extremity radiculopathy is causally related on a secondary basis to her lumbar strain.

4. Based on clear and unmistakable evidence, the Veteran's asthma is a disability that preexisted active service.

5. The evidence is not at least in relative approximate balance to show that the Veteran's asthma was aggravated during active duty service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. With benefit of doubt, the criteria for service connection for a lumbosacral strain are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

2. The criteria for service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, to include as secondary to lumbosacral strain, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310.

3. The criteria for service connection for preexisting asthma are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.306.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1974 to August 1974. The Veteran also has an extensive record of service with the Army Reserve. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §?7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c)(1).

In the August 2025 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 2025 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, 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 Veteran's lower back and asthma claims previously came before the Board in August 2024. Both claims were remanded for the RO to obtain the Veteran's complete military records, to include any line of duty determination for periods of ACDUTRA or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). The lower back claim was also remanded for the RO to afford the Veteran with a new VA examination because the Board found that a previous examiner in March 2024 endorsed a negative nexus opinion that was inadequate.

The Board additionally has jurisdiction over the issue of service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy due to the now service-connected lumbosacral strain.  Per 38 C.F.R. § 3.155, VA will also consider all lay and medical evidence of record in order to adjudicate entitlement to benefits for the claimed disability as well as entitlement to any additional benefits for complications of
, to include any line of duty determination for periods of ACDUTRA or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). The lower back claim was also remanded for the RO to afford the Veteran with a new VA examination because the Board found that a previous examiner in March 2024 endorsed a negative nexus opinion that was inadequate.

The Board additionally has jurisdiction over the issue of service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy due to the now service-connected lumbosacral strain.  Per 38 C.F.R. § 3.155, VA will also consider all lay and medical evidence of record in order to adjudicate entitlement to benefits for the claimed disability as well as entitlement to any additional benefits for complications of the claimed disability.  38 C.F.R. § 3.155(d)(2).  

Service Connection 

Generally, 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, 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, or nexus, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that "[w]hether lay evidence is competent and sufficient in a particular case is a factual issue to be addressed by the Board").

Once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible. See Layno, supra (distinguishing between competency, "a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered;" and credibility, "a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted"). The Board is also charged with the duty to assess the probative weight given to all evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter (which includes but is not limited to equipoise), VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 778 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral strain is granted.

The Veteran asserts that her lower back disability is causally related to a lumbar strain during active service. After careful review, the evidence is at least in approximate balance to support benefit of the doubt. Therefore, entitlement to service connection should be granted. 

The initial determination in any claim for Veterans' benefits is whether the claimant is considered a "Veteran" during the period of service upon which the claim is based. See Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473, 484 (2006). The type of military service a claimant had governs his or her eligibility for service connection for a given disability. Relevant to this case, there is a difference between "active duty," which includes "full-time duty in the Armed Forces, other than active duty for training," and ACDUTRA ("active duty for training"), which includes "full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes." 38 U.S.C. § 101(21), (22).

As set forth below, the distinction between active duty, ACDUTRA, and INACDUTRA governs
 the claim is based. See Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473, 484 (2006). The type of military service a claimant had governs his or her eligibility for service connection for a given disability. Relevant to this case, there is a difference between "active duty," which includes "full-time duty in the Armed Forces, other than active duty for training," and ACDUTRA ("active duty for training"), which includes "full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes." 38 U.S.C. § 101(21), (22).

As set forth below, the distinction between active duty, ACDUTRA, and INACDUTRA governs the circumstances under which the Veteran may be eligible for service connection for the claim on appeal.

As above, 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, 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).

However, when a claim for service connection is based on a period of ACDUTRA, there must be evidence that the claimant became disabled (or died) as a result of a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during the period of ACDUTRA. See, generally, 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(2), (22), (24), 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c); Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40, 44 (2010); Acciola v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 320, 324 (2008). When a claim for service connection is based on a period of INACDUTRA, there must be evidence that the claimant became disabled (or died) from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, or from acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cerebrovascular accident. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24)(C).

Moreover, unless and until Veteran status is established for any period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA, the presumptions of soundness and aggravation, and the presumptions of service connection accorded certain diseases (e.g., "chronic diseases" listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a)), do not apply. See e.g. Smith, supra; Acciola, supra.

In this case, there is no assertion by the Veteran nor any evidence in the record that suggests that her lower back disability was related to acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cerebrovascular accident. Accordingly, the Board's analysis will focus solely on whether the lower back disability resulted from: (a) a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active duty; (b) a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during ACDUTRA; or (c) an injury incurred or aggravated during INACDUTRA.  

For the reasons outlined below, the Board finds that after recognizing benefit of doubt, the Veteran's lower back disability resulted from an injury that occurred during a period of ACDUTRA in July 1988. 

In July 2023, VA received a Form 21-10210 Lay/Witness Statement. Therein, the Veteran reported that her "Lower Back Pain" occurred "while on Active Duty [when she] injured [her] back while lifting a tent." According to the Veteran: "To this day I still have pain in my lower back area." 

To determine the nature and cause of the Veteran's lower back disability, she was afforded a VA examination in March 2024. The examiner assessed a lumbosacral strain during the review period. Therefore, the Veteran has established a current disability, which satisfies the first element of service connection. See Shedden, supra.

During the March 2024 examination, the Veteran reported that her "[c]ondition began [in] 1974, when she was putting up a tent." During a subsequent examination, however, the Veteran reported that she "was evaluated and treated for a lumbar spine disability condition in 1988 and diagnosed with a lumbar strain." C&P Exam, December 2024. Upon review, the claims file includes an STR from July 1988, where the Veteran was assessed with
 afforded a VA examination in March 2024. The examiner assessed a lumbosacral strain during the review period. Therefore, the Veteran has established a current disability, which satisfies the first element of service connection. See Shedden, supra.

During the March 2024 examination, the Veteran reported that her "[c]ondition began [in] 1974, when she was putting up a tent." During a subsequent examination, however, the Veteran reported that she "was evaluated and treated for a lumbar spine disability condition in 1988 and diagnosed with a lumbar strain." C&P Exam, December 2024. Upon review, the claims file includes an STR from July 1988, where the Veteran was assessed with a "lumbar strain" after reporting lower right-sided back pain due to "lifting [a] tent." STR - Medical, February 2014. 

Because a lumbar strain in 1988 is supported by documentary evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran misspoke when she reported a lower back injury in 1974. Although that misstatement does not negatively impact the Veteran's claim for lower back benefits, the Board finds that her credibility is somewhat diminished with regard to dates in the past when she was reportedly treated for various conditions. 

As above, the second element of service connection requires an in-service incurrence or aggravation of injury or disease. See Shedden, supra. Although military records show a lumbar injury in 1988, the record does not clearly establish whether that injury occurred during a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. According to a Chronological Statement of Retirements Points from May 10, 1993, the Veteran earned 38 inactive duty points and 15 active duty points between the dates of February 9, 1988, and February 8, 1989. The 38 inactive points show that the Veteran served for a total of 19 days of INACDUTRA between February 1988 and February 1989. The 15 active duty points show that she served for 15 days of ACDUTRA during that same period.

Upon careful review, the claims file includes no documentation that establishes whether the July 1988 lower back treatment occurred during ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. However, because 15 days of ACDUTRA is nearly as long as 18 days of INACDUTRA, the Board finds that for the purposes of this decision, the lumbar injury took place during ACDUTRA. To support this finding, the Board is acknowledging benefit of doubt. See Lynch, supra.

Therefore, the record shows that the Veteran was injured during a period of ACDUTRA. Moreover, the VA examination from December 2024 includes the following positive nexus opinion: 

"The entrance exam is silent for the claimed condition confirming that it was not a pre-existing condition. STR confirms that the [V]eteran was evaluated and treated for a lumbar spine disability condition in 1988 and diagnosed with a lumbar strain. The [V]eteran's lay statement confirms that she injured her lumbar spine during service in 1988 after lifting a heavy tent. This is objective evidence of an established nexus connecting the [V]eteran's claimed condition to her military service."

Because that opinion is well-supported by lay testimony and contemporary treatment evidence, the Board finds that it is highly probative. Although, the previous examiner from March 2024 endorsed a negative opinion, that opinion cannot be probative because it was found inadequate by the BVA decision in August 2024.   

As shown, the record includes probative evidence to establish that the Veteran became disabled as a result of an injury incurred during a period of ACDUTRA. Therefore, that period now qualifies as active duty service. 

Moreover, the STR from 1988 satisfies the second element of service connection, which requires an in-service incurrence or aggravation of injury or disease. See Shedden, supra. And the examiner's opinion from December 2024 satisfies the third element, which requires competent evidence that shows a causal relationship, or nexus, between the current disability and the in-service incurrence. See id.

Because all the elements have been met, the Veteran's entitlement to service connection for a lower back strain should be granted. As explained above, the Veteran has received benefit of the doubt. See Lynch, supra.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, as secondary to a lumbosacral strain, is granted.

Service connection can be granted on a secondary basis if a Veteran has (1) a current disability, (2) a separate disability already subject to service connection, and (3) the first disability is proximately due to or the result of or aggravated beyond its natural progress by the service-connected disability. Allen v
 or nexus, between the current disability and the in-service incurrence. See id.

Because all the elements have been met, the Veteran's entitlement to service connection for a lower back strain should be granted. As explained above, the Veteran has received benefit of the doubt. See Lynch, supra.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, as secondary to a lumbosacral strain, is granted.

Service connection can be granted on a secondary basis if a Veteran has (1) a current disability, (2) a separate disability already subject to service connection, and (3) the first disability is proximately due to or the result of or aggravated beyond its natural progress by the service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). A "baseline level of severity" of the non-service-connected condition must be established by medical evidence in order to award secondary service connection based on aggravation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b).

During the December 2024 examination, the Veteran was assessed with left lower extremity radiculopathy. Therefore, the first element of secondary service connection has been met. See Allen, supra. As of the current decision, the Veteran is service connected for a primary disability of lumbosacral strain, which meets the second element of secondary service connection. See Id. In December 2024, the VA examiner explained: "As the lumbosacral strain became chronic and worsened over the years it resulted in nerve compression causing radiculopathy in the left lower extremity." For the same reasons described above, the Board finds that the examiner's opinion is probative. Therefore, the Veteran's left lower extremity radiculopathy has been shown to be proximately due to or the of result her primary service-connected lower back disability. Therefore, the final element is met for secondary service connection. See Allen, supra.

In conclusion, the Veteran's entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy should be granted. Because the positive and negative evidence is not in a state of approximate balance, the Veteran needs no benefit of the doubt. See Lynch, supra.

Entitlement to service connection for asthma is denied.

The Veteran asserts that her asthma, which she experienced prior to active service, was aggravated by service and should therefore be service connected. After careful consideration of the medical evidence and lay testimony, the Board does not agree.

The RO has conceded that the Veteran has a current disability of asthma. Rating Decision, April 2025. The Board will not disturb that favorable finding. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

Every Veteran is presumed to be of sound condition when examined, accepted, and enrolled for military service, except (1) as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination, acceptance, and enrollment, or (2) where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1111.

The presumption of soundness applies only when a disease or injury not noted upon entry to service manifests in service, and a question arises as to whether it preexisted service. Gilbert v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 48, 55 (2012), aff'd 749 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

During an enlistment examination on January 29, 1974, no current asthma was noted. See also Report of Medical History, January 1974 ("No asthma noted; no SOB"). However, the Report of Medical History from the same day mentions a reported history of asthma. Because asthma was not noted during the enlistment examination, the Veteran is presumed sound unless it is shown by clear and unmistakable evidence that her asthma pre-existed her service.

The Board finds, however, that the claims file includes clear and unmistakable evidence that is sufficient to rebut the presumption of soundness for asthma. During a VA examination in March 2024, the Veteran reported that her asthma "began during childhood." Upon review, the Veteran has made no statements to contradict this self-report. The Board notes that a Report of Medical History from March 10, 1984, includes a report that the Veteran "had an [asthma] attack 12 years ago." That report establishes that the Veteran experienced self-assessed asthma symptoms around 1972, which is prior to her active duty period in 1974. As above, any Veteran is competent to report symptoms which are lay-observable to the five senses. Asthma's hallmark symptom of difficult breathing would be capable of lay observation. Moreover, the Veteran worked for an extended period as a nurse's assistant. See e.g. Report of Medical History, March 
 asthma "began during childhood." Upon review, the Veteran has made no statements to contradict this self-report. The Board notes that a Report of Medical History from March 10, 1984, includes a report that the Veteran "had an [asthma] attack 12 years ago." That report establishes that the Veteran experienced self-assessed asthma symptoms around 1972, which is prior to her active duty period in 1974. As above, any Veteran is competent to report symptoms which are lay-observable to the five senses. Asthma's hallmark symptom of difficult breathing would be capable of lay observation. Moreover, the Veteran worked for an extended period as a nurse's assistant. See e.g. Report of Medical History, March 1984. Therefore, she has some degree of medical training and specialized knowledge to support her otherwise competent lay assertion of an asthma attack circa 1972.

Based on the foregoing evidence (which the Veteran has not disputed), the Board finds clear and unmistakable evidence to establish that the Veteran experienced asthma before she began active service in 1974. Clear and unmistakable evidence is defined as obvious or manifest. 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(b). Clear and unmistakable evidence means that the evidence "cannot be misinterpreted and misunderstood, i.e., it is undebatable." Quirin v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 390, 396 (2009).

Because the Veteran experienced pre-existing asthma, the presumption of soundness does not apply to that claim for service connection. Because the presumption of soundness does not apply, the Veteran can only be service connected for asthma if evidence shows that her disability worsened in severity beyond its natural progression during service, i.e., was aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306.

If in-service aggravation of a preexisting condition noted at service entrance is shown, the in-service evidence of aggravation is considered sufficient to allow for service connection unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the condition was not permanently aggravated beyond the natural progression of the condition during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.306. 

After careful review, the Board finds that service-related aggravation of asthma has not been established. Although asthma was included on multiple Reports of Medical History, that condition was not noted as an active condition in any of the Veteran's Reports of Medical examination between 1974 and 1993. Moreover, the claims file includes no STRs that show treatment for asthma. 

In a statement from July 2023, the Veteran reported that "while on Active Duty [she] was treated for [asthma]." She added: "Today, I still experience shortness of breath and chest tightness." The Board notes, however, that in March 1984 (ten years after starting active duty), the Veteran reported "No sig[nificant] prob[lem]" with asthma following the symptom attack in 1972. Report of Medical History, March 1984. Between this statement and the lack of supporting STRs, the Board finds that the Veteran's undocumented report of treatment during service is not sufficiently probative to establish that she treated for worsening asthma symptoms during active service in 1974. 

The Board also notes that the Veteran has given conflicting statements regarding her onset of lower back symptoms. As above, she alternately reported that her lumbar injury happened in both 1974 and 1988. Compare C&P Exam, March 2024 (reporting 1974) with C&P Exam, December 2024 (reporting 1988). Those contradictory statements diminish the Veteran's credibility as a witness to establish that she treated for asthma during active service in the absence of documentary support. 

As above, the Veteran has worked as a nurse's assistant. Therefore, she is capable to some degree of making evidentiary statements regarding medical matters. The Board finds, however, that the Veteran's relative competence does not impact the finding that her report of treatment during active service is not sufficiently credible to establish a worsening of asthma symptoms. The Board also notes that the Veteran has not sufficiently explained why treating for asthma during service would necessarily constitute an aggravation of that condition beyond its baseline degree of severity.

In conclusion, because in-service aggravation has not been shown, the service connection claim for asthma must be denied. 

The Veteran has alternately asserted that she should be service-connected on a secondary basis due to aggravation of asthma symptoms from one or more of her primary service-connected disabilities. See Informal Hearing Presentation, July 2024. As of this decision, her service-connected disabilities are limited to: left foot callus with hyperkeratosis at 10 percent from June 23, 2023; right foot callus with hyperkeratosis at 10 percent from June 23
 that the Veteran has not sufficiently explained why treating for asthma during service would necessarily constitute an aggravation of that condition beyond its baseline degree of severity.

In conclusion, because in-service aggravation has not been shown, the service connection claim for asthma must be denied. 

The Veteran has alternately asserted that she should be service-connected on a secondary basis due to aggravation of asthma symptoms from one or more of her primary service-connected disabilities. See Informal Hearing Presentation, July 2024. As of this decision, her service-connected disabilities are limited to: left foot callus with hyperkeratosis at 10 percent from June 23, 2023; right foot callus with hyperkeratosis at 10 percent from June 23, 2023; tinnitus at 10 percent from June 23, 2023; left ear hearing loss with a noncompensable evaluation from June 23, 2023; onychomycosis with a noncompensable evaluation from June 23, 2023; lumbosacral strain with an evaluation and disability date to be determined by the RO; and left lower extremity radiculopathy with an evaluation and disability date to be determined by the RO. After careful review, the Board finds no evidence to establish any likelihood that symptoms from those disabilities would have aggravated the Veteran's asthma on a secondary basis. For her part, the Veteran has advanced no such theories or offered any specific lay testimony to that effect.  Therefore, the standard for obtaining a medical opinion on a theory of secondary service connection has not been met. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006).  

As above, entitlement to service connection for preexisting asthma must be denied. Because the positive and negative evidence is not in a state of approximate balance, the Veteran cannot receive benefit of the doubt. See Lynch, supra; Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable based on "pure speculation or remote possibility" and "is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence").

 

 

Jenna Brant

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J.D. Shoup, 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.