16-12 047

• Court: Board of Veterans' Appeals
• Decided: September 6, 2018
• Docket: 16-12 047
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Citation Nr: 18132492 Decision Date: 09/06/18 Archive Date: 09/06/18

DOCKET NO. 16-12 047 DATE: September 6, 2018 ORDER Service connection for diabetes mellitus, Type II, (diabetes mellitus) is denied. FINDING OF FACT At no time during, or prior to, the pendency of the claim, does the Veteran have a current diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, served on active duty from November 1966 to September 1968, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 1. Entitlement to Service Connection for Diabetes. The Veteran seeks a 10 percent disability rating for efforts required to prevent diabetes mellitus. Specifically, the record does not show, and the Veteran does not claim, that at any point during, or prior to his claim, he had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus. After review of the medical evidence and application of currents laws, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted for the following reasons. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. 1110; 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). Evidence must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed. In the absence of proof of a present disability due to disease or injury that occurred in service, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Sanchez-Benitez v. Principi, 259 F.3d. 1356 (2001). While the record contains service, VA, and private treatment records, there is no evidence of a current diagnosis or current symptoms of diabetes. Service connection may only be granted for a current disability; and when a claimed condition is not shown, there may be no grant of service connection. See 38 U.S.C. 1110; Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992) (Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability). After a review of all of the evidence of record, both lay and medical, the Board finds that the weight of the competent evidence demonstrates that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of diabetes. As stated above, the Veteran does not contend that the has diabetes mellitus. As there is no current disability, a discussion of any in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, or nexus, is unnecessary. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes is denied. The Board has carefully and compassionately reviewed the appellant's arguments, and the law has been considered in the most favorable light possible. The Board notes the Veteran’s contentions that service connection should be awarded for his efforts to prevent the onset of diabetes mellitus. However, the benefit which the appellant seeks is simply and clearly precluded by law. The Board is bound by the law and is without authority to grant benefits on an equitable basis. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 503, 7104 (2012); Harvey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 416, 425 (1994).

H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Teague, Associate Counsel