MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

J.P. NORMAN · 2026 · Case ID: A26040852

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Navy from July 1990 to February 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for multiple conditions: depression, insomnia, sleep apnea, skeletal arthritis, chronic pain, muscle spasms, bilateral upper and lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain, and a prostate condition. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the April 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision, including hearing testimony and private treatment records submitted within the allowed timeframe. For all claimed conditions, the Board found that the probative evidence persuasively weighed against service connection. Specifically, for depression, insomnia, and sleep apnea, the Board noted the absence of complaints or treatment in service treatment records (STRs) and found that the submitted private treatment records and hearing testimony did not establish a nexus to service, nor did they meet the criteria for a remand for a VA opinion under McLendon v. Nicholson. For skeletal arthritis, chronic pain, and muscle spasms, the Board acknowledged a left hand work injury from 2010 but found no current diagnosis or objective evidence of functional impairment related to these conditions, nor any in-service complaints. For the neuropathy and nerve pain claims, the Board noted the absence of in-service complaints or treatment and found no positive nexus opinion. For the prostate condition, the Board found no evidence of a diagnosis in the record and no in-service complaints. In all instances, the Board concluded that the evidence did not establish the necessary elements for service connection, and therefore, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule did not apply. All claims were denied.

Rationale

No in-service complaints or treatment for psychiatric condition; No nexus established to service; McLendon criteria for remand not met

Service Branch

NAVY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210601-163436

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040852
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 210601-163436
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for depression is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for insomnia is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for skeletal arthritis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for chronic pain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for muscle spasm is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity neuropathy and nerve pain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity neuropathy and nerve pain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a depression disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

2. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had an insomnia disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

3. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a sleep apnea disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

4. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a skeletal arthritis disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

5. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a chronic pain disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

6. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a muscle spasm disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

7. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a left upper extremity neuropathy and nerve pain disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

8. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a right upper extremity neuropathy and nerve pain disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

9. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a left lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

10. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a right lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

11. The probative evidence of record weighs persuasively against finding that the Veteran has had a prostate disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim that is causally related to an injury, event, or disease in service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for depression have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for insomnia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a skeletal arthritis disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C.
38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for insomnia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a skeletal arthritis disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a chronic pain disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a muscle spasm disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left upper extremity neuropathy and nerve pain disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

8. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right upper extremity neuropathy and nerve pain disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

9. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

10. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

11. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from July 1990 to February 1991.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2021 rating decision.

In the June 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on August 8, 2025.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2021 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.

The Board notes that evidence was received more than 90 days after the Veteran's hearing that the Board cannot consider in adjudication of this claim as it arrived outside the evidence submission window, which ended on November 6, 2025.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted 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
20.801.

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; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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-the so-called "nexus" requirement. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 38 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The absence of any one element will result in a denial of service connection.

Service connection may also be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of sections 1110 and 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000). However, a current diagnosis is not the only evidence necessary to show a current disability. In Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the Federal Circuit held that "pain in the absence of a presently diagnosed condition can cause functional impairment," which may qualify as a disability for VA compensation purposes. The Federal Circuit in Saunders, however, cautioned against the notion that "a veteran could demonstrate service connection simply by asserting subjective pain" because, to establish that a disability is present, the veteran "will need to show that... pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity." Id. at 1367-68. The Federal Circuit noted that functional impairment is defined as the inability of the body or a constituent part of it to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. Id. at 1363 (quoting 38 C.F.R. § 4.10).

VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a claimant prevailing in either event. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an "approximate" (meaning nearly equal) balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any material determination. See Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391 (2021); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

1. Entitlement to service connection for depression is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for depression.

The Board observes that the Veteran's STRs contain no complaints of, or treatment for, any psychiatric condition during his time in service.

A review of the records reveals depression screening and an interpretation of severe depression in September 2022. See August 2025 private treatment records.

1. Entitlement to service connection for depression is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for depression.

The Board observes that the Veteran's STRs contain no complaints of, or treatment for, any psychiatric condition during his time in service.

A review of the records reveals depression screening and an interpretation of severe depression in September 2022. See August 2025 private treatment records.

Although the Board has considered the Veteran's private treatment record submitted in August 2025, this evidence cannot provide a basis for the Board to remand the claim to afford the Veteran a VA examination or medical opinion. Because this evidence was not of record prior to the AOJ determination on appeal, it cannot be the basis for a remand for a medical opinion due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

The Board acknowledges that, while the Veteran may genuinely believe that he has depression related to service, the Veteran does not have the requisite medical knowledge, training, or experience to be able to render an opinion as to etiology. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 437 (2011).

For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of entitlement to service connection for depression. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply in this regard, and the claim is hereby DENIED. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F. 4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

2. Entitlement to service connection for insomnia is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for insomnia. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that he has to take a sleeping pill because he has insomnia when he's not sleeping and that his private provider treats him for insomnia. See August 2025 hearing transcript.

In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted a May 2024 private treatment record indicating he takes Seroquel for insomnia. See August 2025 private treatment record.

The Board observes that the Veteran's STRs contain no complaints of, or treatment for, insomnia during his time in service.

While a VA medical opinion has not been obtained, the Board finds that one is not required before adjudication of this appeal. VA must provide a medical examination or obtain medical opinion when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing that certain diseases manifested 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) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. 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). Here, the criteria under McLendon are not met, as there is no evidence establishing that an
in service, or establishing that certain diseases manifested 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) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. 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). Here, the criteria under McLendon are not met, as there is no evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing that certain diseases manifested during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and no 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.

Although the Board has considered the Veteran's hearing testimony and the private treatment record submitted in August 2025, this evidence cannot provide a basis for the Board to remand the claim to afford the Veteran a VA examination or medical opinion. Because this evidence was not of record prior to the AOJ determination on appeal, it cannot be the basis for a remand for a medical opinion due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

The Board acknowledges that, while the Veteran may genuinely believe that he has insomnia related to service, the Veteran does not have the requisite medical knowledge, training, or experience to be able to render an opinion as to etiology. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 437 (2011).

The Board notes that no positive opinion has been submitted linking the Veteran's insomnia to his active service.

For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of entitlement to service connection for insomnia. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply in this regard, and the claim is hereby DENIED. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F. 4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

3. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for sleep apnea. During his hearing, the Veteran's spouse testified that the Veteran snores and chokes in his sleep; that she has to nudge him; and that sometimes he is not breathing. The Veteran testified that when he was in the Navy people did not want to sleep around him because he snored. See August 2025 hearing transcript.

In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted a September 2023 private treatment record indicating suspected sleep apnea and a referral for sleep study. See August 2025 private treatment record.

After a thorough review of the Veteran's record, however, the Board has found no evidence of a diagnosis of a sleep apnea disability within the Veteran's treatment records at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

The Board observes that the Veteran's STRs contain no complaints of, or treatment for, sleep apnea during his time in service.

Although the Board has considered the Veteran's hearing testimony and the private treatment record submitted in August 2025, this evidence
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) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. 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). Here, the criteria under McLendon are not met.

The Board acknowledges that, while the Veteran may genuinely believe that he has sleep apnea related to service, the Veteran does not have the requisite medical knowledge, training, or experience to be able to render a diagnosis nor an opinion as to etiology. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 437 (2011).

For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply in this regard, and the claim is hereby DENIED. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F. 4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

4. Entitlement to service connection for skeletal arthritis is denied.

5. Entitlement to service connection for chronic pain is denied.

6. Entitlement to service connection for muscle spasm is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for skeletal arthritis, chronic pain, and muscle spasm. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that he has chronic pain, muscle spasms, and skeletal arthritis of his whole joints throughout his whole body system. He testified that he was a cook and had to pick up a lot of heavy weight, including large quantities of food, large pots, and large sacks of food for 8 to 10 hours a day. He testified that he started having muscle spasms because he wasn't told how to properly pick up the sacks of potatoes or heavy equipment. He testified that he also had to go out on the base and pick up debris from accidents and put it on trucks. He testified that he would miss his step in climbing onto the truck and fall. The Veteran testified that he never went to sick bay for any of his injuries falling or picking up the heavy sacks of food and pots he had to pick up. He testified that both his elbows, wrists, shoulders, hips, knees, feet, and ankles hurt. He testified that within 2 years of getting out of service, he sought medical help for his chronic pain, muscle spasms, and arthritis from a private doctor, but that he does not recall the name of the private doctor. He testified that he currently sees a primary doctor for his chronic pain, muscle spasms, and skeletal arthritis, and that he takes muscle spasm pills to help with the muscle spasms. The Veteran testified that he has muscle spasms in his back, legs, thighs, hamstrings, arms, and forearms and that he is in constant pain. See August 2025 hearing transcript.

Initially, the Board notes that in the April 2021 rating decision, the AOJ found that medical evidence from St. Joseph Regional Health Center dated for the period February to June 2010 shows left hand arthritic and degenerative changes. The Board is bound by this favorable finding.

A review of the record reveals medical evidence of a left finger and left wrist injury related to a February 2010 work accident in which the Veteran got his left index finger caught in a chicken holder at work and it twisted his finger and left wrist. See January 2017 private treatment records.

After a thorough review of the Veteran's record, with the exception of the left hand work injury discussed above, the Board has found no evidence of a diagnosis of skeletal arthritis, chronic pain, or muscle spasms within the Veteran's treatment records at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289
favorable finding.

As stated above, the lack of a current diagnosis does not end the analysis for the current disability element necessary for a successful service connection claim. See Saunders, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Thus, the Board must determine whether the evidence of record shows objective evidence of pain which reaches the level of functional impairment; that is, whether the Veteran's pain causes him to be unable to function under the ordinary conditions of life, to include employment, and thus qualifies as a current disability. Here, the medical evidence of record does not show objective evidence of pain that causes the Veteran to be unable function under the ordinary conditions of life. There is no objective evidence that the Veteran's pain has risen to the level of functional impairment; nor has the Veteran made such a claim in either statement or testimony. Finally, the Board observes that the Veteran's STRs contain no complaints of, or treatment for, any musculoskeletal conditions during his time in service.

Although the Board has considered the Veteran's hearing testimony, this evidence cannot provide a basis for the Board to remand the claim to afford the Veteran a VA examination or medical opinion. Because this evidence was not of record prior to the AOJ determination on appeal, it cannot be the basis for a remand for a medical opinion due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

The Board acknowledges that, while the Veteran may genuinely believe that he has skeletal arthritis, chronic pain, and muscle spasm disabilities related to service, the Veteran does not have the requisite medical knowledge, training, or experience to be able to render such diagnoses. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 437 (2011).

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that there are no current diagnoses of any skeletal arthritis, chronic pain, and muscle spasm conditions and no functional impairment due to such conditions, including as due to pain, that qualifies as a current disability. As a diagnosis is the cornerstone of a claim for benefits, the claim for service connection for skeletal arthritis, chronic pain, and muscle spasm disabilities must fail. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of entitlement to service connection for skeletal arthritis, chronic pain, and muscle spasm disabilities. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply in this regard, and the claims are hereby DENIED. 38 U.S.C.
such conditions, including as due to pain, that qualifies as a current disability. As a diagnosis is the cornerstone of a claim for benefits, the claim for service connection for skeletal arthritis, chronic pain, and muscle spasm disabilities must fail. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

7. Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity neuropathy and nerve pain is denied.

8. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity neuropathy and nerve pain is denied.

9. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain is denied.

10. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for left and right upper and lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that the tingling in his fingers and toes started in the military and continues today. He testified that he sees a specialist that treats his neuropathy with gabapentin, and that he takes the medication three times per day. He testified that the medication does not really help with his neuropathy. See August 2025 hearing transcript.

In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted private treatment records indicating he takes gabapentin for neuropathy. See August 2025 private treatment record.

The Board observes that the Veteran's STRs contain no complaints of, or treatment for, insomnia during his time in service.

The Board notes that no positive opinion has been submitted linking the Veteran's neuropathy to his active service.

The Board acknowledges that, while the Veteran may genuinely believe that he has neuropathy related to service, the Veteran does not have the requisite medical knowledge, training, or experience to be able to render an opinion as to etiology. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 437 (2011).

For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of entitlement to service connection for left and right upper and lower extremity neuropathy and nerve pain. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply in this regard, and the claims are hereby DENIED. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Lynch v. McDonough
medical knowledge, training, or experience to be able to render an opinion as to etiology. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 437 (2011).

11. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for a prostate condition. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that he started having prostate and leakage problems, and that he had surgery about three or four years ago. See August 2025 hearing transcript.

After a thorough review of the Veteran's record, the Board has found no evidence of a diagnosis of a prostate disability within the Veteran's treatment records at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

The Board observes that the Veteran's STRs contain no complaints of, or treatment for, a prostate condition during his time in service.

The Board acknowledges that, while the Veteran may genuinely believe that he has a prostate condition related to service, the Veteran does not have the requisite medical knowledge, training, or experience to be able to render a diagnosis. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 437 (2011).

For the reasons discussed above, the Board finds that the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a prostate condition. As such, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply in this regard, and the claim is hereby DENIED. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F. 4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

J.P. Norman

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board L. Fulmer

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