190719-24760

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedOctober 29, 2021
Docket190719-24760
StatusUnpublished

This text of 190719-24760 (190719-24760) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
190719-24760, (bva 2021).

Opinion

Citation Nr: AXXXXXXXX Decision Date: 10/29/21 Archive Date: 10/29/21

DOCKET NO. 190719-24760 DATE: October 29, 2021

ORDER

Service connection for right tibial and fibular fractures is denied.

Service connection for migraine headaches is denied.

Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

Service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

Service connection for bilateral tinnitus is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The decedent served in the United States Marine Corp Reserve with a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from June 1963 to December 1963.

2. The appellant has not met the burden of proof of showing a permanent increase in the decedent's preexisting right tibial and fibular fractures during his period of ACDUTRA.

3. The decedent served at Camp Lejeune for at least 30 days; however, neither migraines nor acquired psychiatric disorders are enumerated diseases presumptively related to Camp Lejeune contaminated water exposure; there is no competent evidence that such are due to the decedent's ACDUTRA, to include exposure to the contaminants at Camp Lejeune.

4. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the decedent had a bilateral hearing loss disability for VA purposes at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

5. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that tinnitus began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for right tibial and fibular fractures have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for migraine headaches have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.6, 3.303, 3.307(a)(7)(iii), 3.309(a).

3. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.102, 3.303, 3.307(a)(7)(iii), 3.309(a).

4. The criteria for service connection for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.102, 3.303, 3.385.

5. The criteria for service connection for bilateral tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The decedent served in the United States Marine Corps Reserve, with a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from June 1963 to December 1963. He died in October 2018. The appellant, who is the decedent's surviving spouse, was substituted as the claimant in February 2019.

Rating decisions were issued under the legacy system in February 2018 and April 2018, and the decedent submitted a timely notice of disagreement. In July 2019, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued two statements of the case (SOC). The appellant opted the issue on appeal into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting a July 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, identifying the July 2019 SOCs. Therefore, the two July 2019 SOCs are the decisions on appeal.

In the July 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the appellant elected the Hearing docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2019 SOCs, as well as any evidence submitted by the appellant or her representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).

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).

The preliminary determination in any claim for veterans' benefits is whether the claimant is considered a "veteran" as defined under VA law. See Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473, 484 (2006). Special rules apply to National Guard and Reserve service. Service in the National Guard or Reserves, even during period of ACDUTRA without more, will not suffice to give one "veteran" status. Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 172 (2010).

A veteran is "a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released there from under conditions other than dishonorable." 38 U.S.C. § 101 (2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (d). ACDUTRA is, among other things, full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes or by members of the National Guard of any state. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (c)(1). Thus, in order to establish "veteran status" with respect to service in the Reserves or National Guard, and therefore eligibility for service connection, the record must establish that a claimant was disabled due to a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during a period of ACDUTRA, or that he or she was disabled from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during a period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA.) See Mercado-Martinez, 11 Vet. App. at 419; Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 466, 470 (1995); Biggins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 474, 478 (1991); see also 38 U.S.C. § 101 (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (a).

The presumption of soundness applies only when a disease or injury not noted upon entry to service manifests in service, and a question arises as to whether it preexisted service. Gilbert v. Shinseki, 26 Vet.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Waters v. Shinseki
601 F.3d 1274 (Federal Circuit, 2010)
Jandreau v. Nicholson
492 F.3d 1372 (Federal Circuit, 2007)
Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson
19 Vet. App. 473 (Veterans Claims, 2006)
Ray A. Mc Clain v. R. James Nicholson
21 Vet. App. 319 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Angel S. Nieves-Rodriguez v. James B. Peake
22 Vet. App. 295 (Veterans Claims, 2008)
Valerie Y. Smith v. Eric K. Shinseki
24 Vet. App. 40 (Veterans Claims, 2010)
Kevin T. Donnellan v. Eric K. Shinseki
24 Vet. App. 167 (Veterans Claims, 2010)
Joe L. Monzingo v. Eric K. Shinseki
26 Vet. App. 97 (Veterans Claims, 2012)
Daniel R. Gilbert v. Eric K. Shinseki
26 Vet. App. 48 (Veterans Claims, 2012)
Steven M. Romanowsky v. Eric K. Shinseki
26 Vet. App. 289 (Veterans Claims, 2013)
Gilbert v. Shinseki
749 F.3d 1370 (Federal Circuit, 2014)
Gilbert v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 49 (Veterans Claims, 1990)
Biggins v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 474 (Veterans Claims, 1991)
Hensley v. Brown
5 Vet. App. 155 (Veterans Claims, 1993)
Paulson v. Brown
7 Vet. App. 466 (Veterans Claims, 1995)
McLendon v. Nicholson
20 Vet. App. 79 (Veterans Claims, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190719-24760, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/190719-24760-bva-2021.