ANKLE IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Air Force from June 1972 to October 1983, appeals the denial of service connection for multiple orthopedic conditions, including right ankle pain, left knee condition, bilateral foot pain (hallux valgus), left shoulder disability, right shoulder disability, and right hand finger pain. The veteran contended these conditions were related to his service as an F-106 pilot, specifically citing trauma from sliding down a steel pole and the rigors of flight. The Board denied all claims, finding a lack of competent medical evidence to establish service connection. Service treatment records were largely silent regarding the claimed conditions, and post-service treatment often showed no diagnosis or normal findings. VA examinations generally found no current diagnosis or opined that the conditions were less likely than not related to service, citing a lack of chronicity during service or a clear nexus. While a private physician provided a statement, the Board found it lacked sufficient rationale and did not adequately address the specific diagnoses or link them to service. The Board also noted that medical articles submitted by the veteran were not accompanied by a medical opinion and were too general to be probative. The veteran's own assertions about the cause of his pain were deemed insufficient without medical expertise. Consequently, all claims were denied due to failure to meet the three-element test for service connection.

Rationale

STRs silent for right ankle complaints/treatment; Post-service VA exam normal with subjective pain; No current diagnosis of right ankle condition; Pain alone does not constitute disability per Saunders v. Wilkie

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040694
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250919-588627
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for right ankle pain is denied.

Service connection for a left knee condition is denied.

Service connection for bilateral foot pain is denied.

Service connection for a left shoulder disability is denied.

Service connection for a right shoulder disability is denied.

Service connection for right hand finger pain is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a right ankle disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a left knee disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that bilateral foot pain, to include hallux valgus, began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a left shoulder disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

5. The evidence persuasively favors the finding that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's right shoulder disability is etiologically related to his active service. 

6. The Veteran's right hand/finger condition did not originate in service, within a year of service, and is not otherwise etiologically related to his active service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for a right ankle disability are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for a left knee disability are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for bilateral foot pain, to include hallux valgus, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 

4. The criteria for service connection for a left shoulder disability have not been met.  38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for a right shoulder disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.309.

6. The criteria for service connection for right hand/finger pain are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1972 to October 1983.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

In the September 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on January 7, 2026.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (
. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

1. Service connection for right ankle pain

2. Service connection for left knee condition

The Veteran contends he has right ankle and left knee disabilities that are related to his time as an F-106 pilot during active service.  

The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) do not show any complaints of or treatment for the right ankle or left knee. Additionally, the Veteran's numerous periodic medical examinations are silent for any complaints of ankle or knee pain. In June 1982, the Veteran had a muscle cramp in the left calf, which he injured while running two months prior. He still had full left leg range of motion, but there was slight tenderness to palpitation. He was advised to rest for two weeks, and the treatment records show no further sequelae of the left leg. 

The Veteran's post-service treatment records show the Veteran complained of right ankle swelling in March 2020. The Veteran also complained of left knee pain, however, x-rays were taken in May 2014 and July 2020, which showed no acute or suspicious findings. The 2020 report showed there was no focal evidence seen for knee pain. In December 2023, the Veteran complained of bilateral knee pain, which he reported to be due to his military work and stated it caused a lifetime of pain and lack of mobility.

The Veteran was afforded a VA Ankle examination in August 2025. The examiner acknowledged the Veteran's right ankle pain, but found there was no diagnosis as to the Veteran's right ankle. The Veteran reported the onset of his ankle pain to be in approximately 2015, and he believed it to be related to his military service, as he had to slide down two stories on a steel pole and land on his feet to get to his ready alert plane. He stated he had progressive right ankle pain that is typically related to activity, but sometimes it can be random. He reported that he is unable to run and has increased pain with walking.  Upon examination, the Veteran's ankles were found to be normal. The examiner noted the Veteran has full range of motion in his right ankle, even after repeated use over time. The examiner noted that his ankle pain impacts his occupational tasks with increased symptoms with activity, but the Veteran reported losing zero to one week of time lost in the last 12 months. The examiner found that the Veteran's symptoms are subjective only and there is no chronic diagnosis related to an ankle condition as the Veteran has claimed. 

The Veteran was also afforded a VA Knee examination in December 2024. He stated that his left knee has been "achy" for some time, and he believed it was due to sliding down firehouse poles. The examiner found there was no diagnosis as to the left knee, and osteoarthritis of the right knee. The Veteran reported no pain and full range of motion in the left knee. The examiner stated that the functional impairment of the Veteran's knees was an inability to sit or drive for prolonged periods of time. The examiner, however, noted that there is no diagnosis of the left knee, and he denied any complaints of left knee pain. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not the Veteran's left knee pain is related to service as there is no pathology to warrant a diagnosis. 

The Veteran submitted a private nexus statement from his providing physician in August 2024. His provider indicated that he only reviewed treatment records since separation but not service treatment records. He noted the Veteran's current disabilities are lumbago, bilateral knee pain and bilateral ankle pain, which he opined are most likely caused by sliding down a two-story fire pole. He explained that the Veteran was constantly subjected to lumbar and lower body trauma secondary to his fighter duties with the Air Force. The provider stated that he has treated the Veteran for over 15 years
 denied any complaints of left knee pain. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not the Veteran's left knee pain is related to service as there is no pathology to warrant a diagnosis. 

The Veteran submitted a private nexus statement from his providing physician in August 2024. His provider indicated that he only reviewed treatment records since separation but not service treatment records. He noted the Veteran's current disabilities are lumbago, bilateral knee pain and bilateral ankle pain, which he opined are most likely caused by sliding down a two-story fire pole. He explained that the Veteran was constantly subjected to lumbar and lower body trauma secondary to his fighter duties with the Air Force. The provider stated that he has treated the Veteran for over 15 years and has reviewed service treatment records during and since service. He opined that in his professional opinion, the Veteran's lumbago is related to service duties. 

Although the private provider stated the Veteran's lower body trauma is due to service, the rationale is incomplete, as he does not indicate the actual current diagnosis of the right ankle or left knee, aside from pain. The provider's rationale is limited to a conclusory remark that connects the Veteran's lower body trauma to his duties in the Air Force. Therefore, the Board gives little probative value to the opinion at this time.

Here, the evidence does not show that the Veteran was ever treated for, or otherwise experienced right ankle or left knee problems while in service. Furthermore, the additional medical evidence does not show that the Veteran has ever been diagnosed with a right ankle or left knee condition. Although treatment records show a one-time complaint of swelling of the right ankle, the VA examination was normal, with just subjective complaints of intermittent pain. Further, x-ray evidence was interpreted as showing the Veteran's left knee to be normal. 

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's claims of right ankle and left knee pain and has considered this case in light of Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (in which pain in some circumstances may constitute a disability for VA compensation purposes). The Board finds there is no competent medical evidence of record suggesting functional impairment of earning capacity due to any right ankle or left knee condition. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran would have some functional impairment of the right ankle, but only with activity. Of note, the Veteran testified that after service, he no longer flies, but rather works in the aerospace industry, doing business development and program management. There is no indication that this position requires activity that would be impaired due to the Veteran's right ankle or left knee. The Veteran reported that he cannot run due to his ankle and he did not report any pain in the left knee. The Board finds that this does not rise to the level of functional impairment of earning capacity, and that the Veteran's claimed right ankle and left knee pain cannot be considered disabilities per Saunders.

The Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a right ankle condition nor a left knee condition, and that the Veteran's claimed right ankle pain and left knee pain are not disabilities alone. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no claim for service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

Consequently, service connection for a right ankle condition and a left knee condition are denied.

If the Veteran is able to get Dr. Wahl, or any other medical professional, to write a clearer statement explaining the specific diagnosed disability in the left knee and the right ankle, and why it is at least as likely as not (approximate balance or nearly equal) that such disability was the result of the Veteran's military service, including sliding down the emergency pole and being subjected to significant G-forces, he is encouraged to file a supplemental appeal.

3. Service connection for bilateral foot pain 

The Veteran contends that his bilateral foot pain is the result of his active service, to include sliding down a two-story steel pole.

STRs are silent for any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for a foot condition. At the January 2026 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he did not have any foot pain while on active duty.

The Veteran's post-service treatment records show the Veteran has a diagnosis of hallux valgus deformity on both feet, confirmed by x-ray on January 2026. 

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in August 2025 and was diagnosed with hallux valgus. The Veteran could not recall the onset of his foot pain, but stated that he had big toe joint pain for several years and it caused pain with standing or weight-bearing. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's bilateral foot condition was due to his service. She stated that there was a lack of substantiating evidence supporting a nexus between his bunions and
 testified that he did not have any foot pain while on active duty.

The Veteran's post-service treatment records show the Veteran has a diagnosis of hallux valgus deformity on both feet, confirmed by x-ray on January 2026. 

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in August 2025 and was diagnosed with hallux valgus. The Veteran could not recall the onset of his foot pain, but stated that he had big toe joint pain for several years and it caused pain with standing or weight-bearing. The VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's bilateral foot condition was due to his service. She stated that there was a lack of substantiating evidence supporting a nexus between his bunions and military service. As there was no chronicity during service or after, a post-service event, illness or injury is more likely etiology. 

The Veteran submitted a private nexus statement from his providing physician in August 2024. He noted the Veteran's current disabilities as lumbago, bilateral knee pain and bilateral ankle pain, which he opined are most likely caused by sliding down a two-story fire pole. He did not mention the Veteran's foot conditions, to include hallux valgus, however, he stated the Veteran was subjected to lower body trauma secondary to his fighter duties with the Air Force. 

In January 2026, the Veteran submitted a statement from a different provider, who noted the Veteran's assertion that he had incurred injuries to both feet at the big toes and ankles from doing defense alerts. She hand wrote that sliding down two flights of stairs on a steel pole will damage feet and ankles, but the comment read more like a passing treatment note than a medical opinion, as it was grouped with notes such as "took x-rays of big toes both feet and both ankles"; and "can't apply injections to reduce pain because there is no space available in the toe joints between the bones". 

The Board finds the private opinions to have low probative value, as the August 2024 provider failed to mention the Veteran's foot diagnoses and vaguely stated that the Veteran's lower body trauma was due to his service. The opinion lacks sufficient rationale and is inadequate without further explanation. 

The January 2026 private statement is also inadequate for the purpose of providing a nexus opinion, as the provider merely described the Veteran's belief that his duties in service caused his injuries. She also stated that sliding down a pole will damage feet and ankles, but it is unclear if she is stating that it will cause long term damage or just immediate injury. As such, the statement is given low probative value as there is insufficient rationale. 

The Board is encouraged to speak with his medical providers again in the next year and get an opinion explaining how sliding down the pole is expected to cause the conditions the Veteran now has which developed years after service.  If an opinion is obtained, the Veteran should file a supplemental claim.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions that his bilateral foot pain is related to active service, to include that damage from sliding down a pole.  However, the Veteran is not considered competent (meaning medically qualified through training or expertise) to attribute his foot conditions to landing on his feet after sliding down a pole, as doing so requires medical knowledge and expertise that he has not been shown to possess.  See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Consequently, his assertions are not found to constitute medical evidence of record probative in showing that his foot condition is related to active service.

Accordingly, service connection for bilateral foot pain with hallux valgus is not warranted.

4. Service connection for left shoulder injury pain

5. Service connection for right shoulder injury pain

The Veteran contends his bilateral shoulder pain is due to the rigors of being an F-106 pilot during active service.

STRs are silent for any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment of any shoulder condition. In a July 1983 Report of Medical Examination, the Veteran specifically denied any upper extremity condition.

Post service treatment records show the Veteran complained of left shoulder discomfort in November 2021. 

A VA Shoulder examination in December 2024 noted the Veteran's bilateral shoulder injury/pain, however, the examiner noted the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for his shoulders. The Veteran was unsure of the onset of his shoulder pain but believed it to be around 2000. Currently, he has complaints of increasing stiffness and decreased range of motion. Upon examination, however, the Veteran had full range of motion on both shoulders, but with pain. The examiner opined that the Veteran's shoulder pain is less likely than not caused by service, as there is no diagnosis. She stated that the Veteran had complaints
 specifically denied any upper extremity condition.

Post service treatment records show the Veteran complained of left shoulder discomfort in November 2021. 

A VA Shoulder examination in December 2024 noted the Veteran's bilateral shoulder injury/pain, however, the examiner noted the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for his shoulders. The Veteran was unsure of the onset of his shoulder pain but believed it to be around 2000. Currently, he has complaints of increasing stiffness and decreased range of motion. Upon examination, however, the Veteran had full range of motion on both shoulders, but with pain. The examiner opined that the Veteran's shoulder pain is less likely than not caused by service, as there is no diagnosis. She stated that the Veteran had complaints of discomfort and pain coming from his neck, but there are no records related to shoulders. STRs are silent for anything regarding the shoulders and he also denied being seen for shoulder issues until recently with his primary care physician. 

The Veteran was afforded another VA Shoulder examination in August 2025. The examiner found that the Veteran did not have a shoulder diagnosis. The Veteran reported he was unable to recall the onset of his shoulder pain but stated he had right shoulder pain for several years. He believed it began in the early 1990s. He believed that his time playing football at West Point, with recurrent tackles and his training caused his right shoulder pain. He stated he did not have shoulder pain during his time flying. He reported he has decreased range of motion and is unable to lift any significant weight and avoids pushing or pulling due to shoulder pain.

At the Board hearing, the Veteran testified that that he received steroid injections for his right shoulder, but he is starting to get a similar type of jabbing in his left shoulder, though less frequently.

The Veteran submitted additional medical records in February 2026, that show the Veteran was recently diagnosed with moderate right shoulder osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tendinopathy. There was no diagnosis of the left shoulder.  

The Veteran submitted medical articles in February 2026 that found that fighter pilots had increased shoulder pain. The medical articles submitted were considered.  The United States Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims, however, has held that a medical article or treatise "can provide important support when combined with an opinion of a medical professional" if it discusses generic relationships with a degree of certainty such that, under the facts of a specific case, there is at least "plausible causality" based upon objective facts rather than on an unsubstantiated lay medical opinion. Mattern v. West, 12 Vet. App. 222, 228 (1999).  The medical articles submitted by the Veteran, however, were not accompanied by the opinion of any medical expert.  The articles speak in terms too general to be of probative value to the current medical history.

Here, STRs do not document any shoulder complaints and the Veteran denied having shoulder pain while in service. Further, the Veteran stated the onset of shoulder pain to be either in the early 1990s or 2000s. The medical evidence does not document a chronic right shoulder disability during the year following his separation from active service, and, as such, the Veteran is not entitled to presumptive service connection for a chronic right shoulder disorder.  Therefore, the presumption of service connection has not been triggered and the record does not show continuous symptomatology.

In this case, treatment records do not show shoulder problems in service or for many years afterward. The Veteran has not submitted any competent medical evidence showing that any shoulder disorder was due to his active service. While he submitted a private opinion from his provider, the opinion only discusses the back and lower body trauma.

Regarding the Veteran's left shoulder, in Saunders v. Wilkie,886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit Court held that "pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosis of a present disease, can qualify as a disability" if it "reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity." Id. at 1367-69. However, in this case, even if the reported left shoulder pain without diagnosis was found to constitute a current disability under Saunders, as discussed above, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that such disability began during or was otherwise caused by the Veteran's active service.

Consideration has been given to the Veteran's assertion that his shoulder pain/osteoarthritis was due to his active service. He is clearly competent to report the symptoms of shoulder pain. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  However, while he may describe symptoms, he lacks the medical training or qualification either to diagnose a left shoulder disability or to relate his right shoulder osteoarthritis to any in-service event. Id. 

Accordingly, service connection for a right
 to constitute a current disability under Saunders, as discussed above, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that such disability began during or was otherwise caused by the Veteran's active service.

Consideration has been given to the Veteran's assertion that his shoulder pain/osteoarthritis was due to his active service. He is clearly competent to report the symptoms of shoulder pain. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  However, while he may describe symptoms, he lacks the medical training or qualification either to diagnose a left shoulder disability or to relate his right shoulder osteoarthritis to any in-service event. Id. 

Accordingly, service connection for a right shoulder condition and for a left shoulder condition are denied.

6. Service connection for right hand finger pain

The Veteran contends his right hand finger pain is due to service. Of note, the Veteran is service connected for his left hand finger pain based on a football injury in 1968.

STRs note the Veteran's pre-existing left hand injury from playing football. There are no complaints, treatment or diagnoses of the right hand.

Post service treatment records show the Veteran had bilateral 4th and 5th finger flexion contracture, suspected to be Dupuytren's contracture in November 2021. 

The Veteran was afforded a VA Hand and Finger examination in December 2024. He reported that he was unsure of the onset of his finger pain but believed it to be around 2020. He stated a few years ago, he noticed aching in his fingers bilaterally and some decreased range of motion. The examiner, however, found that there was no diagnosis for his right hand fingers. The examiner opined that his right hand pain is less likely than not due to service. He explained that post service treatment records do not relate to any hand or fingers and there are subjective complaints of pain but range of motion is normal.

In a December 2024 statement, the Veteran reported that his right hand fingers do not close all the way, and he has pain when he tries to force closure. 

The Veteran was afforded another examination in August 2025. He was diagnosed with degenerative arthritis of the right hand. The Veteran stated the onset was in 1968 following a football injury. The examiner opined that Veteran's right hand osteoarthritis is less likely than not related to service, as there is a lack of substantiating evidence to support a nexus. As there was no chronicity during service or after, the examiner found that a post-service event or injury is a more likely etiology. 

In November 2025, x-rays showed moderate degenerative changes in the first MCP joint.

At the January 2026 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he believed his right hand condition was due to gripping a stick and acceleration rod while flying. He did not recall injuring his hands playing football at West Point. He also stated that he did not recall having any stiffness in his hands after flying. He stated that his provider believed it could be arthritis related to the pressures he had.

The Veteran also submitted medical articles in February 2026 that showed pilots were more at risk for finger injuries. As noted earlier, the medical articles submitted by the Veteran were not accompanied by a medical opinion and the articles are too general to be of probative value.  Moreover, because the articles came in after the rating decision on appeal, the articles do not trigger VA's duty to assist.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions that his right hand pain is related to active service, to include that damage gripping while flying, however, the Veteran is not considered competent to attribute his hand and finger conditions to flying, as doing so requires medical knowledge and expertise that he has not been shown to possess. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, his assertions alone cannot provide the nexus between his military service and his current finger disability.

The Board finds that the August 2024 medical opinion is highly probative on this issue. The examiner linked the Veteran's 1968 football injury to the Veteran's left hand but reasoned that there was no in-service injury of the right hand, a post-service, illness or injury is more likely. The Board finds that this rationale is understandable and adequate to fully inform the Board. There is no contrary evidence. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran's current right hand finger disability is related to his service.

Accordingly, service connection for a right hand/finger condition is denied.

As with the other conditions on appeal, the Veteran made a compelling case at his hearing for why his more than 
 Board finds that the August 2024 medical opinion is highly probative on this issue. The examiner linked the Veteran's 1968 football injury to the Veteran's left hand but reasoned that there was no in-service injury of the right hand, a post-service, illness or injury is more likely. The Board finds that this rationale is understandable and adequate to fully inform the Board. There is no contrary evidence. Therefore, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against a finding that the Veteran's current right hand finger disability is related to his service.

Accordingly, service connection for a right hand/finger condition is denied.

As with the other conditions on appeal, the Veteran made a compelling case at his hearing for why his more than 1,000 hours flying  F-106 Darts and maintaining ready alert status may have resulted in a variety of orthopedic impairments.  However, the private medical opinions did not generally address the issues on appeal, and the VA opinions that were obtained were against the claim.  It is recommended that the Veteran go see his medical providers and ask them the following:  Is it at least as likely as not (approximate balance or nearly equal) that (insert the orthopedic disability) either began during, or was otherwise caused by his military service, to include as a result of being exposed to the G-Forces and vibrations from flying 1,000+ in a F-106 Dart and repeatedly sliding down two stories on a metal pole and landing on concrete?  Why or why not?   

(Continued on next page) 

If the Veteran is able to obtain this medical opinion, he should consult with his representative. 

 

MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Jaigirdar, B.

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.