INTERVERTEBRAL DISC SYNDROME

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Army from February 1980 to August 1985, appeals the denial of service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability. The veteran claims the disability resulted from the physical nature of service, including repetitive heavy lifting, marching, and rappelling. The Board acknowledged a favorable finding of a diagnosed lumbosacral strain from a prior rating decision. However, the veteran's service separation examination in June 1985 noted a normal spine and no recurrent back pain. The only evidence submitted by the veteran was a research article suggesting a link between active duty and lumbar degenerative disc disease, which the Board found lacked probative value as it was general and not combined with a medical opinion specific to the veteran. A March 2025 VA examination and opinion found the claimed lumbar spine disability less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. The examiner noted the absence of in-service complaints or diagnoses in the service medical records, with the first mention of back pain appearing in VA clinical notes approximately 25 years post-service. The examiner opined the current condition was more likely due to the veteran's long-term boxing career, work as a forklift driver, and natural aging, rather than his 5 years of service 30 years prior. The Board found this VA opinion competent, credible, and persuasive, outweighing the veteran's lay assertions and the research article. The Board concluded the weight of the evidence was against the claim, denying service connection for the lumbosacral spine disability.

Rationale

No competent, credible, persuasive medical opinion establishing etiological relationship to service.; VA examiner opined condition less likely than not related to service.; Service medical records silent for back complaints; first VA mention 25 years post-service.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040822
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 251007-595193
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

A lumbar spine disability is not shown to be incurred in service or due to, etiologically related to, or aggravated by service or service-connected disabilities or treatment for the service-connected disabilities.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty?from February 1980 to August 1985.?????? 

This case comes before the?Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)?Veterans Benefits Administration?Regional Office (RO)?which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).??In October 2025, the Veteran requested a?direct docket?review of the appeal by the Board.? 

This appeal stems from the Veteran's?election?of direct review.  The Veteran acknowledged that the review will be based on the evidence submitted?to VA at the time of the decision on appeal.??Therefore, only evidence of record as of the date of the?respective April 2025?rating decision?will be considered. ?VA will not seek?additional?evidence on behalf of the Veteran as part of the review.

1. Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral spine disability.

Service connection may be established for disability caused by disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.  In order to establish service connection for a claimed disability, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) evidence, generally medical, of a causal relationship between a disease or injury in service and the current disability.  Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999).

Service connection may also be established for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in-service.  38 U.S.C. § 1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Cosman v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 503 (1992).  The disease entity for which service connection is sought must be chronic rather than acute and transitory in nature.  For the showing of chronic disease in service, a combination of manifestations must exist sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word chronic.

Secondary service connection may be established for a disability that is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. 

Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience.  Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of the facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person.  38 C.F.R. § 3.159.  Lay testimony is competent when it regards the readily observable features or symptoms of injury or illness and may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  The Veteran is competent to provide testimony concerning factual matters of which he has firsthand knowledge, such as experiencing a physical symptom such as pain.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005).  Therefore, the Board must assess the competence and credibility of lay statements.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007).

Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility.  Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while weight and credibility are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted
 competent to provide testimony concerning factual matters of which he has firsthand knowledge, such as experiencing a physical symptom such as pain.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005).  Therefore, the Board must assess the competence and credibility of lay statements.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007).

Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility.  Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while weight and credibility are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted.  Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67 (1997).

A Veteran need only demonstrate that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence to prevail.  To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must be against the claim.  Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996).

While the Board must provide reasons and bases supporting a decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the evidence submitted by or on behalf of the Veteran.  Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence).  The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence of record.  The Veteran should not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed.  Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000).

The Veteran claims that a lumbar spine disability is the result of the physical nature of service, to specifically include repetitive heavy lifting, marching, and rappelling.

An April 2025 rating decision found that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a lumbosacral strain.  The Board is bound by that favorable finding. 

The Veteran's June 1985 service separation examination noted a normal spine examination, and the Veteran denied recurrent back pain. 

In support of the claim, the Veteran submitted a research article that suggests a link between active duty service and lumbar degenerative disc disease.  Medical articles or treatises can provide important support when combined with an opinion of a medical professional if the medical article or treatise evidence 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.  Sacks v. West, 11 Vet. App. 314 (1998).  However, articles tend to be general in nature and do not relate to the specific facts in a given claim.  The articles submitted by the Veteran provide general information without a specific connection to the specific details of the cause of his back disability.  Importantly, the article is not combined with an opinion of a medical professional.  Therefore, without a corresponding medical opinion specific to the Veteran's case, the article has little to no probative value and is not persuasive with respect to the issue of whether the Veteran's back disability is proximately due to or the result of service or a service-connected disability.  Accordingly, the article is insufficient to establish service connection for a back disability.

In a March 2025 VA opinion, after review of the claims file and in person examination, the examiner opined that the claimed lumbar spine disability was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) incurred in or caused by the claimed injury, event, or illness in service.  The examiner explained that the Veteran served in the Army from 1980 to 1985.  During that time, there was no objective evidence to support the Veteran's claim of back pain starting in service.  The service medical records were silent for any back complaints, treatment, or diagnoses.  The first mention of the Veteran's back pain in the VA clinical notes was in 2020, approximately 25 years after the Veteran separated from service.  Additionally, the Veteran has worked as a forklift driver since leaving service and was a long-time boxer then boxing coach.  Records noted that the Veteran stopped boxing around age 57.  The examiner opined that it was more likely than not that the Veteran's current lumbosacral strain was a result of his long-term boxing career, work as a forklift operator, and the natural progression of age, not due to his 5 years in service 30 years ago.

There are no other competent, credible, adequate etiology opinions of record.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions that a lumbar spine disability is due to service.  However, there is no competent
25 years after the Veteran separated from service.  Additionally, the Veteran has worked as a forklift driver since leaving service and was a long-time boxer then boxing coach.  Records noted that the Veteran stopped boxing around age 57.  The examiner opined that it was more likely than not that the Veteran's current lumbosacral strain was a result of his long-term boxing career, work as a forklift operator, and the natural progression of age, not due to his 5 years in service 30 years ago.

There are no other competent, credible, adequate etiology opinions of record.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions that a lumbar spine disability is due to service.  However, there is no competent, credible, and persuasive medical opinion to establish an etiological relationship between the claimed disabilities and service.  The Board finds that a competent medical opinion is required to provide an opinion on these medical issues.  The Board finds that the Veteran, as a lay person without the appropriate medical training and expertise in diagnosing and treating musculoskeletal disabilities, is not competent to provide a probative opinion as to whether a lumbar spine disability is either caused or aggravated beyond the natural progression by any incident of active service, or by the service-connected disabilities.  Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  The Veteran has not been shown to possess the adequate medical knowledge, education, or training, to competently opine to the diagnosis or etiology of any musculoskeletal disability.  While the Veteran may report experiencing pain, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis of a specific musculoskeletal disability, or to opine as to the etiology of any condition as those issues fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a layperson.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  That determination must be provided by a medical professional with the proper training, education and experience, in the appropriate fields.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

The Board is not free to substitute its own judgment for a medical expert.  Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991).  The Board finds the March 2025 VA examiner's opinion to be competent, credible, and persuasive.  The March 2025 VA examiner opined that it is less likely than not that any lumbar spine disability is related to or caused by service.  The Board finds the March 2025 VA opinion to be more probative than the lay statements of record.  The opinion of the March 2025 VA examiner is highly probative because it is supported by rationale and provided by a trained medical professional.  The VA examiner specifically identified and discussed the Veteran's contentions and theory concerning service and the claimed disability.  Accordingly, the March 2025 VA examiner's opinion is found to carry significant weight.  

Among the factors for assessing the probative value of a medical opinion are the physician's access to the claims file and the thoroughness and detail of the opinion.  Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60 (1993) (it is the responsibility of the Board to assess the credibility and weight to be given the evidence); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1992).  The probative value of medical evidence is based on the physician's knowledge and skill in analyzing the data, and the medical conclusion reached.  As is true of any evidence, the credibility and weight to be attached to medical opinions are within the province of the Board.  Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467 (1993).  To the extent that the Veteran's lay statements could be found to be competent and credible, the Board finds that they are outweighed by the March 2025 VA examination opinion because of the examiner's medical training. 

The Veteran has not submitted competent, credible, persuasive medical evidence which supports a finding that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability is related to service or caused or aggravated by service or a service-connected disability.

After a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against the claim and against a finding that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability is related to service or caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability.  The most persuasive evidence of record does not support that contention.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the weight of the persuasive evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability.  The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran.  Therefore
, persuasive medical evidence which supports a finding that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability is related to service or caused or aggravated by service or a service-connected disability.

After a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against the claim and against a finding that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability is related to service or caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability.  The most persuasive evidence of record does not support that contention.

Accordingly, the Board finds that the weight of the persuasive evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability.  The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran.  Therefore, the claim must be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107.

 

 

Harvey P. Roberts

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	E. Mondesir, 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.