DEGENERATIVE ARTHRITIS OF THE SPINE (SPONDYLOSIS)

J.P. NORMAN · 2026 · Case ID: A26041005

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Army from March 1982 to October 1986, appeals the denial of service connection for a lumbar spine condition, bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the September and November 2020 rating decisions, along with evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at a February 2025 Board hearing. The Veteran testified that his back and knee pain began during service, but he also stated that the pain subsided and only returned later in life, attributing some issues to post-service activities and natural aging. The Board found the Veteran's lay testimony regarding the onset and continuity of symptoms to be insufficient to establish a service connection, particularly given the significant time lapse between service and the reappearance of symptoms. VA examinations in November 2020 diagnosed degeneration of the lumbosacral spine, degenerative arthritis of the thoracic spine, and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. However, the VA examiners opined that these conditions were less likely than not related to service, citing the lack of in-service chronicity, the delayed onset of symptoms, and the absence of objective evidence of degenerative changes until many years after service. The Board gave high probative value to these negative opinions, finding the evidence persuasively weighed against service connection. Consequently, the claims for lumbar spine disability, bilateral radiculopathy, and bilateral knee disabilities were denied.

Rationale

Evidence persuasively weighs against service connection.; Delayed onset of symptoms post-service.; No in-service chronicity noted.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210623-168030

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26041005
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 210623-168030
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for degeneration of lumbosacral spine, with degenerative arthritis thoracic spine (claimed as lumbar spine condition) (lumbar spine disability) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, with involvement of L4/L5/S1/S2/S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerve) as secondary to degeneration of lumbosacral spine, with degenerative arthritis thoracic spine (claimed as lumbar spine condition) (LLE radiculopathy) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy, with involvement of L4/L5/S1/S2/S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerve) as secondary to degeneration of lumbosacral spine, with degenerative arthritis thoracic spine (claimed as lumbar spine condition) (RLE radiculopathy) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for impairment of the knee, general (left knee, patellofemoral pain syndrome with knee instability and arthritis) (left knee disability) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for impairment of the knee, general (right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome with knee instability and arthritis) (right knee disability) is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability had onset in service or is otherwise related to service.

2. The Veteran's claimed primary disability is not service connected. Therefore, service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy on a secondary basis must be denied as a matter of law.

3. The Veteran's claimed primary disability is not service connected. Therefore, service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy on a secondary basis must be denied as a matter of law.

4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's left knee disability had onset in service or is otherwise related to service.

5. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's right knee disability had onset in service or is otherwise related to service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for LLE radiculopathy as secondary to a lumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for RLE radiculopathy as secondary to a lumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1982 to October 1986.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2020 rating decision which denied service connection for bilateral knee disabilities and a November 2020 rating decision which denied service connection for a lumbar spine and bilateral radiculopathy disabilities.

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 February 7, 2025.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal with respect to the issues of service connection for bilateral knee disabilities, and the November 2020 rating decision with respect to the issues of service connection for lumbar spine and bilateral radiculopathy disabilities, 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.

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 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 service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995).

Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, including arthritis, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Evidence of continuity of symptomatology from the time of service until the present is required where the chronicity of a chronic condition manifested during service either has not been established or might reasonably be questioned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. at 263-64 (to establish service connection based on a continuity of symptoms under § 3.303(b), the evidence must show: (1) a condition "noted" during service; (2) post-service continuity of the same symptoms; and (3) a nexus between the present disability and the post-service symptoms; see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that only conditions listed as chronic diseases in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) may
. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. at 263-64 (to establish service connection based on a continuity of symptoms under § 3.303(b), the evidence must show: (1) a condition "noted" during service; (2) post-service continuity of the same symptoms; and (3) a nexus between the present disability and the post-service symptoms; see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (holding that only conditions listed as chronic diseases in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) may be considered for service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b)).

Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995).

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. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of the matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

1. Entitlement to service connection for degeneration of lumbosacral spine, with degenerative arthritis thoracic spine (claimed as lumbar spine condition) (lumbar spine disability) is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, with involvement of L4/L5/S1/S2/S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerve) as secondary to degeneration of lumbosacral spine, with degenerative arthritis thoracic spine (claimed as lumbar spine condition) (LLE radiculopathy) is denied.

3. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity radiculopathy, with involvement of L4/L5/S1/S2/S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerve) as secondary to degeneration of lumbosacral spine, with degenerative arthritis thoracic spine (claimed as lumbar spine condition) (RLE radiculopathy) is denied.

The Veteran contends that his current lumbar spine disability and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy are related to service. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that his back pain started in service. He testified that he worked in warehouses, as a mechanic, for lumber companies, and a little bit of construction after service. He testified that his back pain "kind of went away" and "he went on," but then later in life, that's "not as easy." He testified that he went to a chiropractor one time in 2020, and they reviewed all his x-rays, and then said they couldn't do anything for him. He testified that he then went back to VA and started trying to deal with it though them again. He testified that he was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis and wonders if that didn't help "stir things up" because he wasn't walking right. See February 2025 hearing transcript.

Initially, the Board notes that in the November 2020 rating decision, the AOJ found that the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service, as review of service treatment records for the period of service from March 16, 1982, throughout October 20, 1983, show low back strain on December 4, 1983, and a follow-up exam on September 21, 1986; that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a disability, as QTC Back (thoracolumbar spine) exam dated November 4, 2020, confirms a diagnosis of degeneration of lumbosacral spine, with degenerative arthritis thoracic spine; that the claimed disability is a chronic disease which may be presumptively linked to military service, as arthritis is a condition that can be serviced connected if diagnosed within one year
had its onset during service, as review of service treatment records for the period of service from March 16, 1982, throughout October 20, 1983, show low back strain on December 4, 1983, and a follow-up exam on September 21, 1986; that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a disability, as QTC Back (thoracolumbar spine) exam dated November 4, 2020, confirms a diagnosis of degeneration of lumbosacral spine, with degenerative arthritis thoracic spine; that the claimed disability is a chronic disease which may be presumptively linked to military service, as arthritis is a condition that can be serviced connected if diagnosed within one year after active duty to at least 10 percent disabling; and that the Veteran has sufficient service to meet the minimum requirements for presumptive service connection, as he served in the Army from March 16, 1982, to October 30, 1986.

The Board further notes that the AOJ found that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a disability, as QTC NEURO Peripheral nerves exam and the QTC Back (thoracolumbar spine) exam dated November 4, 2020, confirm diagnoses of left and right lower extremity radiculopathy, with involvement of L4/L5/S1/S2/S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerve) and of degeneration of lumbosacral spine, with degenerative arthritis thoracic spine; that the claimed disability is a chronic disease with may be presumptively linked to military service, as radiculopathy is a condition that can be service connected if diagnosed within one year after active duty to at least 10 percent disabling; and that the Veteran has sufficient service to meet the minimum requirements for presumptive service connection, as he served in the Army from March 16, 1982, to October 30, 1986. The Board is bound by these favorable findings.

In connection with his claim, the Veteran was afforded VA Back Conditions examination in November 2020. Based on an in-person examination and review of the Veteran's VA e-folder, the VA examiner reported diagnoses of degeneration lumbosacral intervertebral disc and degenerative arthritis thoracic spine. The examiner noted the Veteran's report that the condition started in 1998 (approximately 12 years after service); that when it began, he couldn't bend or stand; and that the symptoms are lower back pain and he is unable to sit or stand for long periods of time.

The Veteran was also afforded a VA Peripheral Nerves Conditions examination in November 2020. Based on an in-person examination and review of the Veterans VA e-folder, the VA examiner reported diagnoses of lumbosacral radiculopathy of the left and right lower extremity.

As a result of the examinations, however, the VA examiner opined that the claimed conditions were less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. By way of rationale, the examiner explained that while the Veteran was evaluated for lumbar strain on or about 18 September, 1986, and 4 December, 1983, there are no further notes regarding the strains, which apparently resolved without sequela; that the Veteran does not report ongoing back pain until 1998 (approximately 12 years after service); that there is no objective evidence of degenerative changes in the lumbar spine until 2009, with radiculopathy noted in 2019; that the Veteran does not report ongoing lumbosacral condition until greater than 10 years after exiting military service; and there is no objective evidence of ongoing lumbosacral radiculopathy until 26 years after exiting military service. The examiner explained that degenerative arthritis of the thoracic spine was demonstrated on 4 November, 2020; that considering history as related by the Veteran, current exam, and review of medical records, it is their opinion that the Veteran has a diagnosis of degeneration of lumbosacral intervertebral discs and degenerative arthritis of the thoracic spine that is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the lumbar condition during service or other service-related event or illness. The examiner explained that the Veteran's current degeneration of lumbosacral intervertebral discs, lumbosacral radiculopathy right and left lower extremity, and degenerative arthritis of the thoracic spine are likely the result of activities since exiting military service and the natural aging process. See November 2020 VA examination reports.

The Board places a high probative value on the November 2020 VA opinions. The VA examiner reviewed the Veteran's complete
umbosacral intervertebral discs and degenerative arthritis of the thoracic spine that is less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the lumbar condition during service or other service-related event or illness. The examiner explained that the Veteran's current degeneration of lumbosacral intervertebral discs, lumbosacral radiculopathy right and left lower extremity, and degenerative arthritis of the thoracic spine are likely the result of activities since exiting military service and the natural aging process. See November 2020 VA examination reports.

The Board places a high probative value on the November 2020 VA opinions. The VA examiner reviewed the Veteran's complete record, including his service treatment records, post-service treatment records, and his claims file, and provided a thorough rationale for the opinions rendered based upon review of the Veteran's complete record. Moreover, the opinions provided reflect consideration of the Veteran's pertinent history, to include his in-service back pain and his lay statements concerning the onset of his back problems, and it makes clear the basis for the opinions.

The Board finds that there is no pre-decisional duty to assist error on the part of the AOJ to warrant remand for a medical opinion to consider the Veteran's testimony about whether his lumbar spine condition is secondary to his service-connected foot disability as presented during the Board hearing. At the time of the September 2020 rating decision, there was no evidence or argument submitted by the Veteran about this theory of entitlement. Therefore, failure to address this theory of entitlement in the November 2020 rating decision does not constitute a pre-decisional duty to assist error warranting a remand. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a) (stating that the Board may issue a remand "if the error occurred prior to the date of the agency of original jurisdiction decision on appeal"). Consistent with this, the Board hearing testimony cannot serve as a basis for a pre-decisional duty to assist error, in that this testimony was obtained well after the rating decision on appeal. For these reasons, the Board finds that failure to consider the Veteran's testimony about this theory of entitlement cannot serve as a basis for a pre-decisional duty to assist error so as to warrant remand.

The Board notes that there are no positive opinions of record that contradict the negative opinions set forth above.

A review of the record fails to show that the Veteran's lumbar spine or radiculopathy conditions manifested to a compensable degree within one year of discharge. Further, the Veteran testified that, while the back pain started during service, it subsequently went away. This aligns with the VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran's back pain was acute in service, rather than a persistent condition that remained after service. Accordingly, service connection on a presumptive basis, to include as based on continuity of his back symptoms since service, must be denied. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

While lay persons are competent to report symptoms or other matters within their personal knowledge, and to provide opinions on some medical matters (see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011)), here, the specific matter of whether his current lumbar spine disability is related to any aspect of the Veteran's military service is a complex medical matter that falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau, supra. Specifically, the question of causation of a lumbar spine disability involves a medical subject concerning an internal physical process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. The Veteran is not shown to have the necessary training and expertise to provide a competent opinion as to the cause of his current lumbar spine disability to include whether such had its onset during or is otherwise related to an in-service disease or injury.

In light of the above, the Board finds that the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the Veteran's claimed lumbar spine condition is etiologically related to service. In reaching this determination, the Board is mindful that all reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the Veteran's favor. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).

Further, entitlement to service connection for left and right lower extremity radiculopathy as secondary to a lumbar spine condition is not warranted. Service connection cannot be established on a secondary basis where the claimed primary disability is not service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

As the evidence persuasively weighs against the claims, for the reasons discussed above, the claims for service connection for a lumbar spine disability and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy must be DENIED.

4.
In reaching this determination, the Board is mindful that all reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the Veteran's favor. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).

4. Entitlement to service connection for impairment of the knee, general (left knee, patellofemoral pain syndrome with knee instability and arthritis) (left knee disability) is denied.

5. Entitlement to service connection for impairment of the knee, general (right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome with knee instability and arthritis) (right knee disability) is denied.

The Veteran contends that his current bilateral knee conditions are related to service. During his hearing, the Veteran testified that his knee pain started in service. He testified that he worked in warehouses, as a mechanic, for lumber companies, and a little bit of construction after service. He testified that the conditions "kind of went away" and he "went on," but then later in life, "that's not as easy." He testified that he was diagnosed with plantar fasciitis and wonders if that didn't help "stir things up" because he wasn't walking right. See February 2025 hearing transcript.

Initially, the Board notes that in the September 2020 rating decision, the AOJ found that the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service, as review of service treatment records indicated that the Veteran was treated for patellofemoral pain syndrome of the knees in 1982; that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a disability, as the current VA examination dated 9/9/2020 has diagnosed him with left and right knee patellofemoral pain syndrome with knee instability and arthritis; that the claimed disability is a chronic disease which may be presumptively linked to military service, as arthritis is a condition that can be serviced connected if diagnosed within one year after active duty to at least 10 percent disabling; and that the Veteran has sufficient service to meet the minimum requirements for presumptive service connection, as he served in the Army from March 16, 1982, to October 30, 1986. The Board is bound by these favorable findings.

Turning to the evidence, the Veteran was afforded a VA Knee Conditions examination in September 2020. Based on an in-person examination and review of the Veteran's VA e-folder, the VA examiner reported diagnoses of bilateral knee patellofemoral pain syndrome, degenerative arthritis, and instability. The examiner noted the Veteran's report of onset of pain in 1984 due to long runs, carrying heavy loads, and running frequently during active duty service. As a result of the examination, however, the VA examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. By way of rationale, the examiner explained that, during service, patellofemoral pain syndrome was acute only; that there is no evidence of chronicity of care for patellofemoral pain (PFP) syndrome in the claims file; that the Veteran's separation exam indicates no concerns regarding chronic knee pain or continued diagnosis of PFP syndrome; that VA treatment records do indicate subjective reports of chronic knee pain in 2006-2007 but no diagnosis of PFP syndrome or arthritis is given; and that x-rays done on day of exam are notable for mild osteoarthritis and some enthesopathy of the right patella, consistent with his mild osteoarthritis. The examiner explained that PFP syndrome during active duty service was acute only; his current reports of bilateral knee pain and x-ray findings are consistent with degenerative arthritis and more likely caused by occupational and recreational activities after active duty service; and that a nexus has not been established. See September 2020 VA examination report.

The Board places a high probative value on the September 2020 VA opinion. The VA examiner reviewed the Veteran's complete record, including his service treatment records, post-service treatment records, and his claims file, and provided a thorough rationale for the opinion rendered based upon review of the Veteran's complete record. Moreover, the opinion provided reflects consideration of the Veteran's pertinent history, to include his in-service knee pain and his lay statements concerning the
syndrome during active duty service was acute only; his current reports of bilateral knee pain and x-ray findings are consistent with degenerative arthritis and more likely caused by occupational and recreational activities after active duty service; and that a nexus has not been established. See September 2020 VA examination report.

The Board finds that there is no pre-decisional duty to assist error on the part of the AOJ to warrant remand for a medical opinion to consider the Veteran's testimony about whether his bilateral knee conditions are secondary to his service-connected foot disability as presented during the Board hearing. At the time of the September 2020 rating decision, there was no evidence or argument submitted by the Veteran about this theory of entitlement. Therefore, failure to address this theory of entitlement in the September 2020 rating decision does not constitute a pre-decisional duty to assist error warranting a remand. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a) (stating that the Board may issue a remand "if the error occurred prior to the date of the agency of original jurisdiction decision on appeal"). Consistent with this, the Board hearing testimony cannot serve as a basis for a pre-decisional duty to assist error, in that this testimony was obtained well after the rating decision on appeal. For these reasons, the Board finds that failure to consider the Veteran's testimony about this theory of entitlement cannot serve as a basis for a pre-decisional duty to assist error so as to warrant remand.

The Board notes that there are no positive opinions of record that contradict the negative opinion set forth above.

A review of the record fails to show that the Veteran's bilateral knee conditions manifested to a compensable degree within one year of discharge. Further, the Veteran testified that, while the knee pain started during service, it subsequently went away. This aligns with the VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran's knee pain was acute in service, rather than a persistent condition that remained after service. Accordingly, service connection on a presumptive basis, to include as based on continuity of his knee symptoms since service, must be denied. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

While lay persons are competent to report symptoms or other matters within their personal knowledge, and to provide opinions on some medical matters (see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011)), here, the specific matter of whether his current bilateral knee disabilities are related to any aspect of the Veteran's military service is a complex medical matter that falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau, supra. Specifically, the question of causation of bilateral knee disabilities involves a medical subject concerning an internal physical process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. The Veteran is not shown to have the necessary training and expertise to provide a competent opinion as to the cause of his current bilateral knee disabilities to include whether such had its onset during or are otherwise related to an in-service disease or injury.

In light of the above, the Board finds that the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that the Veteran's claimed left and right knee conditions are etiologically related to service. In reaching this determination, the Board is mindful that all reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the Veteran's favor. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).

As the evidence persuasively weighs against the claims, for the reasons discussed above, the claims for service connection for left and right knee disabilities must be DENIED.

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