SHOULDER IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The veteran, a veteran who served from January 1989 to January 1993, appeals the denial of service connection for a right shoulder disability, specifically degenerative arthritis with rotator cuff ossific tendinopathy. The veteran claims he injured his right shoulder during service in Desert Storm in 1991 when a weight was dropped on it, and that he did not seek medical attention at the time. The Board found evidence of a current right shoulder disability, but not of an in-service injury. The veteran's service treatment records were silent regarding any shoulder complaints or injuries, and a separation examination questionnaire showed no shoulder issues. The Board noted the veteran's conflicting statements about the incident, finding his current recollections less credible due to inconsistencies and the lack of contemporaneous service treatment record support. The Board found the service treatment records more probative than the veteran's post-service assertions. A VA examiner opined the current disability was less likely than not related to service. The Board also found no evidence of chronicity or continuity of symptomology, and no presumptive service connection for arthritis as the diagnosis occurred more than one year after service. The Board concluded the evidence preponderated against service connection, making the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine inapplicable.

Rationale

No evidence of in-service injury or occurrence; Service treatment records silent regarding shoulder complaints; Veteran's lay statements found not credible due to inconsistencies

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038645
Decision Date: 04/24/26	Archive Date: 04/24/26

DOCKET NO. 210408-151473
DATE: April 24, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for right shoulder degenerative arthritis with rotator cuff ossific tendinopathy (right shoulder disability) is denied. 

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's right shoulder disability is less likely than not related to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for a right shoulder disability are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1989 to January 1993.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision on appeal was issued in March 2021 under The Veterans Appeals Improvement Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA) review system.  

In April 2021, the Veteran timely appealed this rating decision to the Board and selected the hearing lane for this claim.  Thus, the Board can only consider evidence submitted prior to the notification letter of the April 2021 rating decision and evidence provided within 90 days of the Veteran's Board hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

In the March 2021 rating decision, the AOJ found that new and relevant evidence was submitted to warrant readjudicating the claim.  The Board is bound by these favorable findings.  38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).  As such, the Board shall proceed on the merits.  

In September 2024, the Veteran testified at a videoconference Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  A transcript of the hearing is of record.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a).  Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a link between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.  Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013).  Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

The Veteran contends that he injured his right shoulder during his service in Desert Storm.  See December 2020 VA Form 21-526EZ.  In his March 2021 Supplemental Claim, the Veteran further contends that he injured his right shoulder during service in 1991, when a weight was dropped on his right shoulder.  He stated that he never went to medical.

With respect to the first element of service connection, the Board notes that the record reflects that the Veteran has right shoulder arthritis and right shoulder rotator cuff ossific tendinopathy.  See February 2021 VA Shoulder and Arm Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ).  Thus, the first element of service connection is satisfied.

The Board finds that the second element of service connection, evidence of an in-service injury or occurrence, is not satisfied.  The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any injury, complaint, or diagnosis related to his right shoulder.  In fact, in the December 1992 Report of Medical Examination for separation, the Veteran did not report that he injured his right shoulder nor did he report that he had any issues with his right shoulder.  To the question that asked whether the Veteran ever had or current has a "painful or "trick" shoulder or elbow, the Veteran responded "No."  Id. 

Notably, although the Veteran reported that he did not go to medical for his shoulder in 1991, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records reflect that in January 1991 the Veteran went to medical to report a cough and nasal congestion.  In October 1991, the service treatment records reflect that the Veteran reported he does not have a history of blood pressure or any other medical condition.  In December 1991, the service treatment records reflect in a questionnaire that the Veteran was medically evaluated for the medical firefighting training, in which the Veteran reported that he does not have a condition that would affect his ability to complete this course.  Thus, in none of these reports during service did the Veteran report that he
 

Notably, although the Veteran reported that he did not go to medical for his shoulder in 1991, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records reflect that in January 1991 the Veteran went to medical to report a cough and nasal congestion.  In October 1991, the service treatment records reflect that the Veteran reported he does not have a history of blood pressure or any other medical condition.  In December 1991, the service treatment records reflect in a questionnaire that the Veteran was medically evaluated for the medical firefighting training, in which the Veteran reported that he does not have a condition that would affect his ability to complete this course.  Thus, in none of these reports during service did the Veteran report that he injured his shoulder. 

While the Board does not doubt the sincerity of the Veteran's current belief that he injured his shoulder during service, the evidence contains some inconsistencies that diminish the reliability of the Veteran's current recollections.  Again, here when the Veteran was in service in January 1991, October 1991, December 1991, and December 1991, he never reported an injured shoulder.  The first statement he makes about injuring his shoulder was during his February 2021 VA examination, in which he reported he injured his shoulder moving heavy boards.  He later stated in March 2021 and during his Board hearing, that he injured his shoulder when a heavy weight was dropped on his shoulder.  Based on the Veteran's conflicting statements, the Board finds that the Veteran is not credible to the extent that he reports the onset of his right shoulder injury.  Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 510-511 (1995) (Credibility can be generally evaluated by a showing of interest, bias, or inconsistent statements, and the demeanor of the witness, facial plausibility of the testimony, and the consistency of the witness testimony.).  Additionally, in weighing the evidence, the Board finds the Veteran's service treatment records, which are contemporaneous to his active service, are more probative than assertions he made many years after service for compensation purposes.  See Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet 59 (1994); Cartwright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25-26 (1991) (a pecuniary interest may affect the credibility of a claimant's lay testimony).  Thus, the Board finds that the second element is not met.  

Without evidence of an in-service injury or occurrence, a nexus between the Veteran's service and current disability cannot be established.  Moreover, there is no evidence of a medical nexus to grant service connection.  In fact, in a February 2021 VA Medical Opinion Disability Benefits Questionnaire, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's current right shoulder disability is less likely than not related to his service.  Thus, the third element of service connection is not met. 

Also, the evidence does not establish service connection by chronicity.  In order to establish service connection by chronicity, the claimant must demonstrate (1) the existence of a chronic disease in service and (2) present manifestations of the same disease.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b).  Here, there is no evidence of a shoulder condition during service.  Thus, there is no evidence to establish the existence of a chronic disease during service.  Thus, without evidence of a chronic disease during service, service connection by chronicity cannot be established.

Furthermore, the evidence does not establish service connection by continuity of symptomology.  Service connection may also be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b), where a condition in service is noted but is not, in fact, chronic, or where a diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned.  Here, a shoulder condition is not noted in service.  Notwithstanding, the evidence does not reflect a continuity of symptomology.  

Lastly, although arthritis is one of the listed chronic diseases.  Since the Veteran did not have a diagnosis arthritis within one year of his separation of service, he cannot establish service connection on a presumptive basis for a chronic disease.  As here the Veteran was first diagnosed with arthritis in 2021.  See February 2021 Diagnostic Imaging Services.  Therefore, it cannot be established that arthritis was shown to be manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year following a Veteran's separation from active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

To the extent that the Veteran has offered his opinion that his right shoulder disability is related to service, this statement appears to pertain to an internal medical process which extends
 he cannot establish service connection on a presumptive basis for a chronic disease.  As here the Veteran was first diagnosed with arthritis in 2021.  See February 2021 Diagnostic Imaging Services.  Therefore, it cannot be established that arthritis was shown to be manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year following a Veteran's separation from active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

To the extent that the Veteran has offered his opinion that his right shoulder disability is related to service, this statement appears to pertain to an internal medical process which extends beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship.  Opinions of this type have been found to be beyond the competence of lay witnesses, as is the Veteran.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ("sometimes the layperson will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer").  Given such, it cannot be stated that he is competent to provide a nexus statement.  All in all, the Veteran's lay statements have been reviewed and considered.  However, the Board finds that all the VA medical evidence and opinion taken together are highly probative as they are based on sufficient facts and data, a product of reliable principles and methods, and applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of this case.  Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302 (2008).  Significantly, there is no contrary medical opinion.

(Continued on the next page) 

?

As the persuasive evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable, and his claim must be denied.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

YVETTE R. WHITE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Abdelbary, 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.