TEETH LOSS OF

MICHAEL LANE · 2026 · Case ID: A26039056

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the US Marine Corps Reserves from June 1994 to December 1994, appeals the denial of service connection for multiple conditions, including loss of teeth due to bone loss, bilateral foot fractures, neck strain, peripheral neuropathy in all extremities, visual impairment, and epiphora. The Board denied all claims, finding that the Veteran failed to establish the first criterion for service connection: the existence of a current disability. For the dental claim, the Board noted that while the entrance examination showed missing teeth, subsequent examinations were normal, and no current diagnosis or in-service event causing the loss was demonstrated. For the foot and neck claims, the Board found that in-service injuries (ankle sprains, cervical strain) resolved without residual symptoms, and post-service records did not support current disabilities or a nexus to service. Similarly, for peripheral neuropathy and visual impairments, the Board found no evidence of onset during service or a nexus to service, noting that the Veteran's claims were not supported by probative medical evidence and that VA examinations were not required due to the lack of a factual basis for the claims. The Board concluded that the evidence did not preponderate in the Veteran's favor for any of the claimed conditions, and the benefit of the doubt was not warranted.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of loss of teeth due to bone loss; No in-service event causing dental condition; Evidence did not support claim

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250423-539935

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039056
Decision Date: 04/27/26 Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 250423-539935
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for loss of teeth due to bone loss is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for foot fracture (tarsal or metatarsal fracture), left foot is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for foot fracture (tarsal or metatarsal fracture), right foot is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a neck strain (cervical strain) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, right upper extremity is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, and double vision is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for epiphora (watery eyes) is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of loss of teeth due to bone loss.

2. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of foot fracture (tarsal or metatarsal fracture), left foot.

3. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of foot fracture (tarsal or metatarsal fracture), right foot.

4. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of neck strain (cervical strain).

5. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity.

6. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity.

7. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity.

8. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, right upper extremity.

9. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, and double vision.

10. The evidence is against finding the Veteran has or has had at any time during the pendency of this appeal a current diagnosis of epiphora (watery eyes).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for loss of teeth due to bone loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for foot fracture (tarsal or metatarsal fracture), left foot are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for foot fracture (tarsal or metatarsal fracture), right foot are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for neck strain (cervical strain) are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3
or metatarsal fracture), right foot are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for neck strain (cervical strain) are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

7. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

8. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, right upper extremity are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

9. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, and double vision are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310.

10. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for epiphora (watery eyes) are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served with the US Marine Corps Reserves from June 1994 to December 1994 with periods of active duty for training and inactive duty for training.

In January 2025, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes cavus, bilateral foot fracture, loss of teeth due to bone loss, neck strain, epiphora, erectile dysfunction, multiple sclerosis, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, sleep apnea, tinnitus, and visual impairment.

In February 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher Level Review (HLR), of the January 2025 rating decision. A March 2025 rating decision continued to deny entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes cavus, bilateral foot fracture, loss of teeth due to bone loss, neck strain, epiphora, erectile dysfunction, multiple sclerosis, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, sleep apnea, tinnitus, and visual impairment.

In April 2025, the VA received a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), electing Direct Review of the March 2025 rating decision's denial of entitlement to service connection for the bilateral foot fracture, loss of teeth due to bone loss, neck strain, epiphora, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper
5 rating decision. A March 2025 rating decision continued to deny entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes cavus, bilateral foot fracture, loss of teeth due to bone loss, neck strain, epiphora, erectile dysfunction, multiple sclerosis, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities, sleep apnea, tinnitus, and visual impairment.

The Board notes that pursuant to the Veteran's July 2025 and January 2026 VA Forms 10182, there are pending appeals separately docketed for entitlement to a service connection for tinnitus and sleep apnea, which will be addressed in separate decisions.

1. Entitlement to service connection for loss of teeth due to bone loss is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for foot fracture (tarsal or metatarsal fracture), left foot is denied.

3. Entitlement to service connection for foot fracture (tarsal or metatarsal fracture), right foot is denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for a neck strain (cervical strain) is denied.

5. Entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity is denied.

6. Entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity is denied.

7. Entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, left upper extremity is denied.

8. Entitlement to service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy, right upper extremity is denied.

9. Entitlement to service connection for visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, and double vision is denied.

10. Entitlement to service connection for epiphora (watery eyes) is denied.

Applicable Law and Regulations

Entitlement to VA compensation may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Certain diseases, to include psychosis and arthritis, may be presumed to have been incurred in service when manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from active duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), an alternative method of establishing the second and third Shedden elements for certain chronic disabilities such as psychosis and arthritis is through a demonstration of continuity of symptomatology.

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310, service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. In order to prevail on the issue of entitlement to secondary service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability, (2) evidence of a service-connected disability, and (3) nexus evidence establishing either the current non-service-connected disability was proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability or was aggravated beyond its natural progress by a service-connected disability. See also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448; Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998).

Due consideration must be given to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for service connection for any disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Competent lay evidence is any evidence that does not require the proponent to have specialized education, training, or experience. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 309 (2007). Lay statements can be considered competent to establish a diagnosis when the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, reports a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or describes symptoms which support a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Once evidence is deemed competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994).

When there is an approximate balance of evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (reasonable doubt to be resolved in the Veteran's favor); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (the benefit-of-the-doubt rule applies if the competing evidence is in approximate balance).

Factual Background and Analysis

Loss of Teeth

The Veteran contends his dental condition was caused by his service. Specifically, his loss of teeth was due to toxic exposures in service, and alternatively, it was caused by or due to his multiple sclerosis.

The January 2025 rating decision made a favorable finding that the Veteran's entrance examination confirmed missing teeth, therefore, a dental issue existed prior to military service. Under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings made by AOJ in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error (CUE). 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

A June 1994 service dental examination showed teeth crossed out, which appeared to indicate missing teeth. He was assessed with hyperkeratosis of the left lower vestibule of the mouth due to tobacco. However, the Board notes that the November 1993 clinical evaluation found his dental examination acceptable. The Veteran continued to have a normal clinical evaluation in December 1994. There was no indication of a dental issue at this time, and he reported excellent overall health.

The Veteran's in-service and post-service treatment records were otherwise silent for any dental disability. There was no evidence of a current diagnosis in the record.

The November 2024 Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) memorandum did not concede participation in a TERA in service.

The Veteran is not currently service connected for multiple sclerosis or any disability.

The Board acknowledges the VA did not afford the Veteran a VA examination relating to this claim. However, the Board finds that such an examination is not necessary to render a decision under the circumstances of this case. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). Under McLendon, in disability compensation claims, the VA will provide a VA medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 79.

In this case, at the time of the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran had not provided any factual basis for his claimed dental condition. The evidence did not demonstrate that any dental condition had its onset during service or was the result of an incident during service. Notably, the record showed only that teeth were previously missing and evidence of hyperkeratosis due to tobacco use at the time of entrance. His dental examination was considered acceptable for service. By the December 1994 examination, his clinical evaluation was normal and there was no report of dental complaints or treatment related to his teeth after his separation from service. As such, the second and third McLendon requirements were not satisfied and a VA examination addressing the Veteran's claim was not required. See also Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010) (finding that the VA is not required to provide a medical examination when there is not credible evidence of an event, injury, or disease in service); Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274. (Fed. Cir. 2010) (rejecting the theory that medical examinations are to be routinely and virtually automatically provided to all veterans in disability cases involving nexus issues).

While statements from the Veteran assert that he had a current dental disability, the most probative medical evidence did not support this opinion. His statements do not establish the required diagnosis of a current disability and a nexus between any dental disability and his military service. Although lay evidence is acceptable to prove the occurrence of an injury during active duty or symptomatology over a period of time when such symptomatology is within the purview of or may be readily recognized by lay persons, lay testimony is not competent to prove a matter requiring medical expertise. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Where the competent evidence establishes that the Veteran does not have the disability for which service connection is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In the instant appeal, the claim for service connection for loss of teeth due to bone loss must be denied because the first criterion for the grant of service connection was not met. The Board finds that the evidence presented was not in approximate balance or nearly equal in the Veteran's favor, therefore, benefit of the doubt was not warranted to the Veteran, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990), Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Bilateral Foot Fracture and Neck Strain

The Veteran contends his conditions were caused by his service. His neck strain was caused by carrying heavy weight on his back in service. Regarding his bilateral foot fracture, he had a training injury in service.

The November 1993 service treatment record noted the Veteran's reports of acute cervical strain in 1990 with no residuals as well as right ankle sprains in 1992 and 1993 that were managed conservatively with symptom resolution. His clinical evaluation in November 1993 was normal. The Veteran continued to have a normal clinical evaluation in December 1994, and he reported excellent health overall. After his separation from service, private treatment records from September 2024 showed a supple neck and no evidence of clubbing, cyanosis, or edema in his extremities during physical examination.

The Veteran's in-service and post-service treatment records were otherwise silent for any foot or neck disability. There was no evidence of current diagnoses in the record.

The Board acknowledges the VA did not afford the Veteran VA examinations relating to these claims. However, the Board finds that such examinations are not necessary to render a decision under the circumstances of this case. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). In this case, at the time of the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran had not provided any factual basis for his claimed foot or neck conditions. The evidence did not demonstrate that any foot or neck condition had its onset during service or was the result of an incident during service. Notably, the record showed right ankle sprain and cervical strain prior to service, which resolved without residual symptoms, and there was no report of complaints or treatment related to his feet or neck after his separation from service. As such, the second and third McLendon requirements were not satisfied and a VA examination addressing the Veteran's claim was not required. See also Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010) (finding that the VA is not required to provide a medical examination when there is not credible evidence of an event, injury, or disease in service); Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274. (Fed. Cir. 2010) (rejecting the theory that medical examinations are to be routinely and virtually automatically provided to all veterans in disability cases involving nexus issues).

While statements from the Veteran assert that he had current bilateral foot and neck disabilities, the most probative medical evidence did not support this opinion. His statements do not establish the required diagnosis of a current disability and a nexus between any foot and neck disability and his military service. Although lay evidence is acceptable to prove the occurrence of an injury during active duty or symptomatology over a period of time when such symptomatology is within the purview of or may be readily recognized by lay persons, lay testimony is not competent to prove a matter requiring medical expertise. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Where the competent evidence establishes that the Veteran does not have the disability for which service connection is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In the instant appeal, the claim for service connection for bilateral foot fracture (tarsal or metatarsal fracture) and neck strain (cervical strain) must be denied because the first criterion for the grant of service connection is not met. The Board finds that the evidence presented was not in approximate balance or nearly equal in the Veteran's favor, therefore, benefit of the doubt is not warranted to the Veteran, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990), Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Peripheral Neuropathy Bilateral Upper and Lower Extremities

The Veteran contends his conditions were caused by his service. He reported a training injury in service resulted in his peripheral neuropathy, and alternatively, he had toxic exposures in service.

The November 1993 service treatment record indicated a normal clinical evaluation. The Veteran continued to have a normal clinical evaluation in December 1994, and he reported excellent health overall. After his separation from service, private treatment records from September 2024 showed complaints that his right arm was bigger than the left with pain and limited range of motion. X-rays of the right elbow and shoulder were normal. Physical examination found he was neurovascularly intact with at most mild swelling in the right arm. In a follow up appointment for the right arm that same month, he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, unspecified polyarthritis, localized swelling, and right arm pain.

The Veteran's in-service and post-service treatment records were silent for any neuropathy disability. There was no evidence of current diagnosis in the record.

The November 2024 TERA memorandum did not concede participation in a TERA in service.

The Board acknowledges the VA did not afford the Veteran a VA examination relating to these claims. However, the Board finds that such examinations are not necessary to render a decision under the circumstances of
elbow and shoulder were normal. Physical examination found he was neurovascularly intact with at most mild swelling in the right arm. In a follow up appointment for the right arm that same month, he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, unspecified polyarthritis, localized swelling, and right arm pain.

The Veteran's in-service and post-service treatment records were silent for any neuropathy disability. There was no evidence of current diagnosis in the record.

The November 2024 TERA memorandum did not concede participation in a TERA in service.

The Board acknowledges the VA did not afford the Veteran a VA examination relating to these claims. However, the Board finds that such examinations are not necessary to render a decision under the circumstances of this case. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). In this case, at the time of the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran had not provided any factual basis for his claimed neuropathy condition. The evidence did not demonstrate that any neuropathy condition had its onset during service or was the result of an incident during service, and there was no report of complaints or treatment related to neuropathy after his separation from service. As such, the second and third McLendon requirements were not satisfied and a VA examination addressing the Veteran's claim was not required. See also Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010) (finding that the VA is not required to provide a medical examination when there is not credible evidence of an event, injury, or disease in service); Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274. (Fed. Cir. 2010) (rejecting the theory that medical examinations are to be routinely and virtually automatically provided to all veterans in disability cases involving nexus issues).

While statements from the Veteran assert that he had a current neuropathy disability, the most probative medical evidence did not support this opinion. His statements do not establish the required diagnosis of a current disability and a nexus between any neuropathy disability and his military service. Although lay evidence is acceptable to prove the occurrence of an injury during active duty or symptomatology over a period of time when such symptomatology is within the purview of or may be readily recognized by lay persons, lay testimony is not competent to prove a matter requiring medical expertise. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Where the competent evidence establishes that the Veteran does not have the disability for which service connection is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In the instant appeal, the claim for service connection for non-diabetic peripheral neuropathy in the bilateral upper and lower extremities must be denied because the first criterion for the grant of service connection is not met. The Board finds that the evidence presented was not in approximate balance or nearly equal in the Veteran's favor, therefore, benefit of the doubt is not warranted to the Veteran, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990), Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Visual Impairment and Epiphora

The Veteran contends his conditions were caused by his service. His epiphora (watery eyes) was due to toxic exposures in service. He reported a training injury in service resulting in his visual impairments including blurry vision, blindness, and double vision. Alternatively, his visual impairments were caused by or due to his multiple sclerosis.

The November 1993 service treatment record noted a report by the Veteran of vision in both eyes without a need for glasses or contacts. His clinical evaluation in November 1993 was normal. The Veteran continued to have a normal clinical evaluation in December 1994 and reported excellent health overall.

The Veteran's in-service and post-service treatment records were otherwise silent for any vision or eye disability. There was no evidence of a current diagnosis in the record.

The November 2024 TERA memorandum did not concede participation in a TERA in service.

The Veteran is not currently service connected for multiple sclerosis or any disability.

The Board acknowledges the VA did not afford the Veteran
caused by or due to his multiple sclerosis.

The Veteran's in-service and post-service treatment records were otherwise silent for any vision or eye disability. There was no evidence of a current diagnosis in the record.

The November 2024 TERA memorandum did not concede participation in a TERA in service.

The Veteran is not currently service connected for multiple sclerosis or any disability.

The Board acknowledges the VA did not afford the Veteran a VA examination relating to these claims. However, the Board finds that such examinations are not necessary to render a decision under the circumstances of this case. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i). In this case, at the time of the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran had not provided any factual basis for his claimed vision or eye conditions. The evidence did not demonstrate that any vision or eye condition had its onset during service or was the result of an incident during service, and there was no report of complaints or treatment related to vision or eye conditions after his separation from service. As such, the second and third McLendon requirements were not satisfied and a VA examination addressing the Veteran's claim was not required. See also Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010) (finding that the VA is not required to provide a medical examination when there is not credible evidence of an event, injury, or disease in service); Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274. (Fed. Cir. 2010) (rejecting the theory that medical examinations are to be routinely and virtually automatically provided to all veterans in disability cases involving nexus issues).

While statements from the Veteran assert that he had a current vision or eye disability, the most probative medical evidence did not support this opinion. His statements do not establish the required diagnosis of a current disability and a nexus between any vision or eye disability and his military service. Although lay evidence is acceptable to prove the occurrence of an injury during active duty or symptomatology over a period of time when such symptomatology is within the purview of or may be readily recognized by lay persons, lay testimony is not competent to prove a matter requiring medical expertise. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Where the competent evidence establishes that the Veteran does not have the disability for which service connection is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). In the instant appeal, the claims for service connection for epiphora (watery eyes) and visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, and double vision, must be denied because the first criterion for the grant of service connection is not met. The Board finds that the evidence presented was not in approximate balance or nearly equal in the Veteran's favor, therefore, benefit of the doubt is not warranted to the Veteran, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990), Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

MICHAEL LANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board K.L. Byers

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer