DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Vietnam Era Veteran who served from February 1969 to October 1970 and received the Combat Infantry Badge and Vietnam Gallantry Cross, appeals the denial of service connection for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease with intervertebral disc syndrome, spinal fusion, spinal stenosis, and dorsalgia, as well as bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The Veteran also appeals the effective date for service connection of right and left lower back scars. The Veteran's initial claim for a spine condition was denied by the RO in September 2023, with a subsequent supplemental claim filed in July 2024 also resulting in denial for the lumbar spine disability, though service connection for lower back scars was granted with a later effective date. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the Veteran's lay statements, VA medical opinions, and private nexus opinions. While a July 2023 VA opinion was deemed to have minimal probative value for the lumbar spine, a November 2025 VA opinion regarding cervical spine fusion, which was at least as likely as not related to parachute jumps, was considered. The Board also gave significant weight to the Veteran's credible lay statements and private physician opinions, which linked his spinal disabilities to parachute injuries sustained during service. The Board found the evidence persuasively established service connection for the lumbar spine disability, applying the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. The Board also found bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy to be secondary to the service-connected lumbar spine condition. For the lower back scars, the Board found entitlement arose on June 15, 2022, the date of lumbar fusion surgery, and granted service connection with that effective date. Service connection for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease with intervertebral disc syndrome, spinal fusion, spinal stenosis, and dorsalgia is granted. Service connection for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is granted as secondary to the lumbar spine disability. Service connection for right and left lower back scars is granted with an effective date of June 15, 2022.

Rationale

Credible lay statements and private nexus opinions link spinal disabilities to parachute injuries.; VA cervical spine opinion found disability at least as likely as not caused by parachute jumps.; Benefit of the doubt rule applied due to approximate balance of evidence.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039227
Decision Date: 04/28/26	Archive Date: 04/28/26

DOCKET NO. 260322-640284
DATE: April 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease with intervertebral disc syndrome, spinal fusion, spinal stenosis, and dorsalgia is granted.

Entitlement to service connection of bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is granted.

Entitlement to an effective date of June 15, 2022, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection of right lower back scar is granted.

Entitlement to an effective date of June 15, 2022, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection of left lower back scar is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's lumbar spine degenerative disc disease with intervertebral disc syndrome, spinal fusion, spinal stenosis, and dorsalgia is the result of active military service.

2. The Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is secondary to lumbar spine degenerative disc disease with intervertebral disc syndrome, spinal fusion, spinal stenosis, and dorsalgia disability.

3. On March 31, 2022, a complete intent to file a claim for Department of Veterans Affairs benefits was received followed on March 23, 2023, by an initial claim for service connection of a spinal disability.

4. The date that entitlement arose for right and left lower back scars was June 15, 2022, which is later than the date of intent to file a claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease with intervertebral disc syndrome, spinal fusion, spinal stenosis, and dorsalgia have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 5107, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.309.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection of bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, as secondary to lumbar spine disability, have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310.

3. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of June 15, 2022, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection of a right back scar have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400.

4. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of June 15, 2022, but no earlier, for the grant of service connection of a left back scar have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1969 to October 1970, during the Vietnam Era.  He is a recipient of the Combat Infantry Badge and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross.

Procedural History

On March 31, 2022, the Veteran filed a VA Form 21-0966 Intent to File a Claim and thereafter, on March 23, 2023, submitted a complete claim for service connection of a spine/back condition.  See March 23, 2023, VA Form 21-526EZ.  In a September 2023 Rating Decision, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) denied service connection of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS), spinal fusion, spinal stenosis, and dorsalgia (lumbar spine disability) upon finding no in service event, disease or injury or medical nexus to active service.

Less than one year later, on July 30, 2024, the Veteran filed a VA Form 20-0995 Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim requesting reconsideration of the September 2023 rating action.  In a December 2025 Rating Decision, the RO again denied the Veteran's claim for service connection of a lumbar spine disability yet granted service connection of right and left lower back scars, and assigned noncompensable ratings, effective July 30, 2024.

In a March 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.  As an appeal in which the Veteran
 or medical nexus to active service.

Less than one year later, on July 30, 2024, the Veteran filed a VA Form 20-0995 Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim requesting reconsideration of the September 2023 rating action.  In a December 2025 Rating Decision, the RO again denied the Veteran's claim for service connection of a lumbar spine disability yet granted service connection of right and left lower back scars, and assigned noncompensable ratings, effective July 30, 2024.

In a March 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.  As an appeal in which the Veteran requested, on the Notice of Disagreement, direct review by the Board without submission of additional evidence and without a Board hearing, the Board's decision is based on a review of the evidence of record at the time of the rating decision on the issues on appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

In accordance with Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023), the Board finds that relevant evidence was not added to the file during a period that the Board may not consider.  However, if the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Service Connection

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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).  Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that relevant to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).  Service connection generally requires competent evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in service disease or injury and the current disability.

Service connection for certain chronic diseases, including arthritis, may also be established on a presumptive basis by showing that such a disease manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service.  38 U.S.C. § 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a).  In such cases, the disease is presumed under the law to have had its onset in service even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a).

To establish service connection under this provision, there must be: evidence of a chronic disease shown as such in service (or within an applicable presumptive period under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307), and subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease; or if the fact of chronicity in service is not adequately supported, by evidence of continuity of symptomatology after service.  The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) relating to continuity of symptomatology, however, can be applied only in cases involving those conditions explicitly enumerated under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a).  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Secondary service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disability.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.  Secondary service connection, as contemplated by 38 U.S.C. § 1110, is warranted when a service-connected disability directly causes a non-service-connected disability, or when a service-connected disability aggravates a non-service-connected disability.  See Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional.  In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determin
 contemplated by 38 U.S.C. § 1110, is warranted when a service-connected disability directly causes a non-service-connected disability, or when a service-connected disability aggravates a non-service-connected disability.  See Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2023).

Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional.  In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value.  Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).  When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side, or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

Lumbar Spine

The Veteran initially submitted a claim for a spine/back condition as due to his military duties as a paratrooper in Vietnam.  See March 2023 VA Form 21-526EZ; March 2023 Correspondence; August 2023 VA Form 21-4138.  The RO favorably found and the record confirms the Veteran has a current diagnosis of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease with IVDS, spinal fusion, spinal stenosis, and dorsalgia.  See July 2023 VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) Examination.  Thus, the first element of service connection is met.

As to element two, the Board finds that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service.  The Veteran's reports of a cumulative impact injury from parachute jumps and other strenuous physical activity are competent, credible and consistent with the circumstances of his service.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a)).  Notably, his DD 214 form notes him as receiving the Parachute Badge and that he was a pathfinder during military service.  See Form DD-214.  Thus, the second element of service connection is met.

As to a medical nexus, the Board takes notice that the Veteran has been awarded service connection of residuals of cervical fusion and discectomy, along with corresponding neck scars.  See November 2025 Rating Decision.  In a November 2025 positive VA nexus opinion, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's cervical spine disability was at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) incurred in or caused by in-service injury, event or illness, i.e. parachute jumps during service.  The examiner confirmed that the Veteran's history confirms that he suffered bad landings in which he hurt his neck, never sought out medical attention due to stigma around treatment, and over time his neck worsened.  The Veteran denies any other injury to the neck or any other activity that would be a cause of the need for neck fusion.

In the December 2025 Rating Decision on appeal, the Veteran was awarded direct service connection of lower back scars as due to lumbar spine surgery, which is inexplicable considering the denial of service connection of a lumbar spine disability.  As the Veteran is already service connected for a musculoskeletal disability resulting from his duties as a parachutist based on a VA medical opinion finding that his cervical spine fusion was at least as likely as not caused by multiple parachute jumps with bad landings, the Board similarly finds his lumbar spine disability onset during active service.

In a July 2023 VA Medical Opinion, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability was not the result of active service because "without chronicity during service or after service, a post-service event, illness, or injury is considered to be a more likely etiology."  The examiner chalked his disability up to aging/wear and tear and noted his
 service connection of a lumbar spine disability.  As the Veteran is already service connected for a musculoskeletal disability resulting from his duties as a parachutist based on a VA medical opinion finding that his cervical spine fusion was at least as likely as not caused by multiple parachute jumps with bad landings, the Board similarly finds his lumbar spine disability onset during active service.

In a July 2023 VA Medical Opinion, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability was not the result of active service because "without chronicity during service or after service, a post-service event, illness, or injury is considered to be a more likely etiology."  The examiner chalked his disability up to aging/wear and tear and noted his service records were silent for low back trauma and injuries sustained during service.  The examiner made no mention of the Veteran's lay statements or private nexus opinion.  The Board accords minimal weight to the July 2023 VA opinion as it offers little probative value in resolving the issue and relies on the lack of in-service complaints in denying a medical nexus.

In an August 2024 VA Medical Opinion, the examiner acknowledged the Veteran's MOS involved jumping from helicopters, and that he experienced a number of traumatic landings that caused back pain.  Moreover, the examiner confirmed that the Veteran has been diagnosed with multiple back conditions that affect his functional capabilities.  However, the examiner pointed to medical literature for the conclusion that paratroopers do not experience low back conditions at a greater frequency or degree than non-parachutists and that his disability is relatively common in the general aging population.  The Board likewise finds the August 2024 VA opinion of minimal probative value as it does not address the Veteran's private nexus opinions and contradictory treatise information submitted by the Veteran.

The Board assigns significant probative weight to the Veteran's credible lay statements, the VA cervical spine medical opinion, the Veteran's private nexus opinions, and to internal consistency in agency decision-making.  The Veteran's lay statement and the VA cervical spine medical opinion and findings are consistent with the nature and circumstances attendant to the rigor and factors present with his military service.  In March and July 2023, and April 2024, the Veteran's private physicians opined that his spinal disabilities are the result of injuries to his back sustained during his time in jump school and as a pathfinder.  The Veteran has no known hereditary or other job-related injuries to his spine.  His physicians opined that it is more likely than not that his current back disabilities are from injuries that occurred during parachute training as the extent of his injuries is not normal for anyone and the Veteran managed pain with over-the-counter medication since 1978.  Upon review of the evidence, the Board finds that element three is established.

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered and applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.  "When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant."  38?U.S.C. §?5107(b).  "Evidence is not in 'approximate balance' or 'nearly equal,' and therefore the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other."  Lynch, 21 F.4th at 776; see also Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  Here, the evidence persuasively establishes that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability is the result of active-duty service and service connection is warranted.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

Radiculopathy

The Veteran has proffered no contentions regarding bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy.  Rather, the Board finds the issue has been raised by the record and is within the scope of the current appeal.

July 2023 and August 2024 VA lumbar spine examinations, as well as the Veteran's private treatment records establish that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy.  Indeed, the August 2024 VA examiner explicitly found that the Veteran's lumbar radiculopathy is secondary to IVDS.  He further noted that the Veteran presented with peripheral polyneuropathy as a new and separate diagnosis yet neglected to provide a nexus statement relative to the new diagnosis.  Upon rating the service-connected disabilities granted herein, the RO should assess the Veteran's full complement of radicular symptoms for service connection.

In sum, the record establishes that the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radicular symptoms are the result of his now service-connected lumbar spine disability and service connection is warranted.

Earlier Effective Date - Scars

Generally
 establish that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy.  Indeed, the August 2024 VA examiner explicitly found that the Veteran's lumbar radiculopathy is secondary to IVDS.  He further noted that the Veteran presented with peripheral polyneuropathy as a new and separate diagnosis yet neglected to provide a nexus statement relative to the new diagnosis.  Upon rating the service-connected disabilities granted herein, the RO should assess the Veteran's full complement of radicular symptoms for service connection.

In sum, the record establishes that the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radicular symptoms are the result of his now service-connected lumbar spine disability and service connection is warranted.

Earlier Effective Date - Scars

Generally, the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later.  38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (emphasis added).  Claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations must be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary, regardless of the type of claim or posture in which the issue arises.  38 C.F.R. § 3.151.

Effective September 25, 2014, if a Veteran submits an intent to file application, the Veteran must submit "a complete application form prescribed by the Secretary" within one year of the submission of the intent to file application.  38 C.F.R, § 3.155(b).

Relevant to the present appeal, continuous pursuit of a claim or an issue can be achieved by timely and properly filing an appropriate review option, generally within one year.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c).  The available review options to establish continuous pursuit depend on the type of decision that was issued.  If the RO decision is an initial or supplemental claim, an appellant may submit a (i) supplemental claim, (ii) higher-level review, or (iii) VA Form 10182, Board appeal to continuously pursue the appeal.  If the decision is an RO decision on a higher-level review request, an appellant may submit a (i) supplemental claim or (ii) appeal to the Board to continuously pursue the appeal.  If a claim is continuously pursued, it will be considered filed as of the date of the first claim in the continuously pursued chain, as opposed to the date the most recent request for review was received.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 3.2500(c).

Analysis

As outlined above, the Veteran filed an intent to file a claim on March 31, 2022, followed less than one-year later by a complete claim for service connection of a spine/back condition, addressed above as a lumbar spine disability, on March 23, 2023.  The claim was denied in a September 2023 Rating Decision, from which the Veteran then filed a supplemental claim less than one year later, on July 30, 2024.  It is from the July 2024 supplemental claim that the present appeal stems.

To establish an effective date earlier than the assigned July 30, 2024, for the grant of service connection of right and left lower back scars, the Veteran must show (1) that he had a prior claim of service connection of lower back scars that remained pending, and, if so, (2) that his lower back scars first manifested prior to July 30, 2024.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.  Although the Veteran did not explicitly claim lower back scars, the Board finds the claims were reasonably raised by the record and continuously pursued.  Notwithstanding, the Board finds the appropriate effective date for lower back scars is the date entitlement arose which was, at the earliest, June 15, 2022, the date that the Veteran underwent lumbar fusion surgery.  Prior to June 15, 2022, the evidence does not show that there were lower back scars as he had not yet undergone lumbar surgery.  See Private Treatment Records (date of surgery shown as Jun 15, 2022).

In this case, the date that entitlement arose for lower back scars was June 15, 2022, which is later than the date of the intent to file a claim, and prior to the initial date of claim.  Therefore, the earliest effective date for the award of service connection of lower back scars is June 15, 2022.  Neither the Veteran, nor his attorney, have asserted disagreement with the noncompensable rating assigned to the Veteran's lower back scars.  See VA Form 10182.

In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has
 there were lower back scars as he had not yet undergone lumbar surgery.  See Private Treatment Records (date of surgery shown as Jun 15, 2022).

In this case, the date that entitlement arose for lower back scars was June 15, 2022, which is later than the date of the intent to file a claim, and prior to the initial date of claim.  Therefore, the earliest effective date for the award of service connection of lower back scars is June 15, 2022.  Neither the Veteran, nor his attorney, have asserted disagreement with the noncompensable rating assigned to the Veteran's lower back scars.  See VA Form 10182.

In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered and applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.  Lynch, 21 F.4th at 776; see also Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  As such, entitlement to an effective date of June 15, 2022, for the award of service connection of right and left lower back scars is granted.

 

 

RAY BARTO SLABBEKORN, JR.

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Regnart, Glenda M.

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.