Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability is denied.

Citation Nr: 26001395 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 15-26 265 DATE: January 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right knee disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for thoracolumbar spine disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for left foot disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right foot disability is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that left knee disability began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that right knee disability began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that thoracolumbar spine disability began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that left foot disability began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 5. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that right foot disability began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left knee disability 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 right knee disability 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 thoracolumbar spine disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. 4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. 5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran was a member of the United States Marine Corps Reserve from October 1980 to October 1987.? He had a period of initial active duty for training (IADT) from June 1981 to November 1981. He had periods of active duty training (ACDUTRA), such as in May 1984; December 1984; January 1985 to February 1985; July 1985; and June 1986, as well as inactive duty training (INACDUTRA). Additionally, he was a member of the United States Navy Reserve from January 1990 to January 1993. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran testified at a September 2019 videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge; a transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. These matters were previously before the Board in December 2019, July 2021, January 2023, and December 2023. A remand by the Board confers on an appellant the right to VA compliance with the terms of the remand order and imposes on the Secretary a concomitant duty to ensure compliance with those terms. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Substantial compliance is all that is required with VA remand orders, particularly when an explanation is offered for any variance. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 106 (2008). The prior remand directives have been complied with. VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.326(a). These duties have been satisfied in this case. Appropriate notice was included in the July 2013 application form. All available Marine Corps Reserve and Navy Reserve were uploaded into the electronic claims file, as documented in November 2020 record requests. The private treatment records submitted by the Veteran, as well as VA treatment records, have been associated with the claims file.? No other relevant records have been identified and are outstanding.? The AOJ provided appropriate VA examinations and opinions. They are adequate because they evaluated the Veteran, made findings necessary to identify his current disabilities, considered the evidence in the claims file, and applied medical knowledge to the Veteran's specific facts. Thus, the AOJ has satisfied its duty to assist with the procurement of relevant records. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duties to notify or assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 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, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability secondary to a service-connected disability, a veteran must demonstrate the existence of (1) a current disability; (2) a service-connected disability; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509 (1998). A layperson is competent to report events about which he has personal knowledge, including the onset and recurrence of symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). The Board assesses not only the competence of evidence but also its credibility, however, to determine what weight to give it. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001). When considering whether lay evidence is satisfactory, the Board may consider internal inconsistency of the statements, facial plausibility, consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of an appellant, and the appellant's demeanor when testifying at a hearing. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Knee Disability The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for bilateral knee disabilities caused by injury during his Marine Corps Reserve training. In service treatment records (STRs), an October 1980 enlistment examination evaluated his lower extremities as normal. In a July 1981 STR, he reported right lower tibia and fibula pain. A November 1981 examination for "leaving active duty" evaluated his lower extremities as normal; in a concurrent November 1981 report of medical history (RMH), he reported current or past leg cramps but denied current or past trick or locked knee. A July 1982 STR to determine his physical qualification for ACDUTRA noted that he "was in auto accident last week. Has minor bruises L hip, several healing lacerations, No limitations at this time." He was found physically qualified for ACDUTRA. A May 1983 examination evaluated his lower extremities as normal; in a concurrent May 1983 RMH, he reported current or past leg cramps but denied current or past trick or locked knee. An April 1986 examination evaluated his lower extremities as normal; in a concurrent April 1986 RMH, he again denied current or past trick or locked knee. In a June 1982 annual certificate of physical condition (ACPC), the Veteran indicated 'yes' when asked if he had an injury, illness, or disease in the past 12 months which required hospitalization or caused him to be absent from school or work for more than 3 consecutive days, though he indicated 'no' when asked if he had any physical deficit which he believed might restrict performance. In June 1983, June 1984, June 1985, and June 1986 ACPCs that followed, he indicated 'no' for both questions. The Veteran was discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve in October 1987. A March 1990 reenlistment examination for the Navy Reserve evaluated his lower extremities as normal. In a concurrent March 1990 RMH, he reported current or past cramps in legs but denied current or past trick or locked knee; the medical officer noted the cramps as "cramps in leg - when overdoing running." In March 1991 and April 1992 ACPCs, he again indicated 'no' for both questions. A September 1992 examination for explosives duty qualification evaluated his lower extremities as normal; in the concurrent September 1992 RMH, he reported current or past cramps in legs but denied current or past trick or locked knee. As to records following service, the Veteran stated in a July 2013 statement (submitted with his claim) that he did not receive medical treatment for his knees - except once in 2009 in Colorado - because he did not have medical insurance. He also testified at the September 2019 Board hearing that he rarely seeks medical treatment: "I'm not a person who goes to the doctors very often. Unless I'm really hurting, I don't go because I feel it's a waste of my time because most of the doctors that I've met try to treat a symptom, not the problem." The first post-service treatment records associated with the claims file are private family medicine records from April 2009 to June 2009 in Colorado. These records note complaints of neck pain with tingling in the left arm; back pain; and skin discoloration on the left arm. His knees are not addressed. A September 2014 private chiropractor record indicated that the Veteran "came to our clinic complaining of low back pain with accompanying radicular pain down the L5 dermatone of the left leg . . . Complicating this condition is his knee pain and condition." A February 2020 VA examination diagnosed left knee strain, listing the date of diagnosis as the date of the examination, and noted right knee crepitus and pain with weight-bearing. A February 2020 VA medical opinion determined that his knee disabilities were less likely than not related to service because they were not noted in the STRs and "a tendon tear would be very unlikely to occur during stretching especially in a young male less than 40 years of age." A June 2022 VA examination diagnosed left knee strain (date of diagnosis 1988) and instability (date of diagnosis 2022); the Veteran reported that he injured his knees in the shower in 1988, falling to his knees. An August 2024 VA examination diagnosed right shin splints (date of diagnosis 1981 and "Resolved"), left knee strain (date of diagnosis 1988), and bilateral knee instability (2022 for the left and 2024 for the right); the Veteran reported injuring his knees in 1988, ripping them while stretching for PT and having his knees buckle in the shower. An August 2024 VA medical opinion determined that his right knee disability was less likely than not caused by the tibia and fibula pain mentioned in 1981 and the reported leg cramps because each the reports were limited; there was no follow-up care; there were no STRs documenting knee pain or treatment in service; and "physicals in 1983, 1986, 1990, [and] 1992 [had] no complaints of knee issues." The August 2024 VA medical opinion also described tibia and fibula pain, shin splints, and leg cramps as "common training injuries that are separate from the knee." A November 2024 VA medical opinion found the bilateral knee disabilities were less likely than not related to military service because there is no documentation of knee "pain, complaints, or treatment during active service." It noted the July 1981 right tibia and fibula pain as well as the current or past complaints of leg cramps from overexertion in March 1990 but emphasized that there is no mention of knee-related issues or complaints in the STRs. In the July 2013 statement, he reported injuring both knees during a three-mile run for a physical fitness test in 1987 or 1988. He indicated that a corpsman treated him by "plac[ing] me on crutches and ha[ving] me follow up with him for a period of 2-3 weeks with heat wraps and ice"; he did not go to the hospital for imaging (July 2013 statement). He reported that his knees "still bothered" him during his Navy Reserve service. In a July 2024 call with VA, he stated that "the injury he was filing for happen [sic] during his time with the USMC, that he didn't have trouble with that injury again until after he had left the Navy"; it is unclear what injury is being referenced. In a March 2015 notice of disagreement, the Veteran stated, "I was injured while serving on an 85-day period of active duty and received extensive treatment from my staff Corpsman." At the September 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that, during physical training "right after Christmas" 1987 in "January or February of '88," he was required to stretch before running, which caused him to "rip[] the tendons" in both knees: In all my other PTs I never stretched; I never stretched in my life. Well, I guess by stretching when I ran I ripped the tendons on both sides of both knees. When I was taking a shower right afterwards, that cool water hit my knees and I literally fell in the shower. I had to continue to rinse myself off, crawl out, dry off, and then I had to crawl down because it's a small base. The shower was three stories up. I had to do a three-story crawl . . . He also testified that the treating doctor put a 1,200 degree heat wrap on both my knees and I had to go in every morning right after roll call for a 1,200 degree heat wrap for 10 to 15 minutes on both knees. At that time, I was also on crutches for 10 days and then I was on a cane for another 30 days. I couldn't hardly walk. I couldn't do almost nothing. And at the Reserves duty I ended up doing more paperwork than I did anything else because I wasn't able to perform any duties because of that. He further testified that his knees would buckle in the period between his Marine Corps Reserve and Navy Reserve, but the Navy Reserve recruiter "told [him] do not mention anything about your knee injury in the Marine Corps; so [he] didn't." A June 2014 lay statement (received in September 2014) from the Veteran's former manager reported that the Veteran "was a mechanic in my charge, he would fall occasionally, he explained his knees would just fold on him. He told me he had injured them in the army." Although the manager's statement indicated that he had been a manager from 1992 thru 2002, it is unclear when the Veteran worked for him. Due to this, as well as the secondhand nature of the reported cause (accentuated by the incorrect recollection of an injury in Army service), the Board questions to competence of this statement and assigns it no weight. The Board also finds the Veteran's statements regarding ripping his knee tendons, being treated in-service, and experiencing symptoms after service are not credible. These statements are not supported by contemporaneous records: he specifically denied trick or locked knee multiple times, though he reported other symptoms (November 1981, May 1983, April 1986, March 1990, and September 1992 RMHs); he consistently denied having a physical deficit which he believed might restrict performance (June 1982, June 1983, June 1984, June 1985, June 1986, March 1991, and April 1992 ACPCs); and his lower extremities were repeatedly evaluated as normal (November 1981, May 1983, April 1986, March 1990, and September 1992 examinations). Moreover, his statements are inconsistent. In contrast to describing trouble walking, pain, buckling, and falling in multiple lay statements, in the February 2020 VA examination, the Veteran reported ripping the tendons on both knees during PT, being treated with crutches and 1200-degree heat packs, then having "no further problems until about 8 years ago." Finally, the Board notes that the timing of his ripped knee tendons falls outside his period of service with the Marine Corps Reserve. He was discharged on October 3, 1987, well before Christmas 1987 and January or February of 1988. Because the lay statements are not credible, the Board gives them no weight. Instead, the Board relies on the medical evidence. There is no medical opinion linking his knee disabilities to service. The VA medical opinions consistently determined that his knee disabilities are less likely than not incurred in or caused by in-service injury, event, or illness. The Board acknowledges the statement in the representative's January 2025 brief that "[s]tudies have shown that there is a direct correlation of knee problems with individuals who have shin splints." The brief does not cite these studies, however, and the Board assigns the weight of the evidence to the competent opinions from medical professionals. The evidence is therefore neither evenly nor approximately balanced regarding whether service connection for left or right knee disability is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. Lynch v. McDonough,?21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ("[T]he benefit-of-the-doubt rule?does not apply[] when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other"). Entitlement to service connection for left knee disability is denied. Similarly, entitlement to service connection for right knee disability is denied. Thoracolumbar Spine Disability The Veteran asserts that service connection is warranted for his thoracolumbar spine disability due to his bilateral knee disabilities. Alternatively, he reports that his back disability began in service. Initially, the Board notes that his knee disabilities are not service connected. This precludes secondary service connection due to his knees, which was his primary theory for service connection. In the STRs, the October 1980 enlistment examination evaluated his spine as normal. The November 1981 examination for "leaving active duty" evaluated his spine as normal; in a concurrent November 1981 RMH, he denied current or past recurrent back pain. The July 1982 STR to determine his physical qualification for ACDUTRA noted that he "was in auto accident last week. Has minor bruises L hip, several healing lacerations, No limitations at this time"; he was found physically qualified for ACDUTRA. The May 1983 examination evaluated his spine as normal; in the concurrent May 1983 RMH, he denied current or past recurrent back pain. The April 1986 examination evaluated his spine as normal; in the concurrent April 1986 RMH, he denied current or past recurrent back pain. As previously noted, he indicated 'yes' in the June 1982 ACPC when asked if he had an injury, illness, or disease in the past 12 months which required hospitalization or caused him to be absent from school or work for more than 3 consecutive days, but he replied 'no' when asked if he had any physical deficit which he believed might restrict performance. In the June 1983, June 1984, June 1985, and June 1986 ACPCs, he indicated 'no' for both questions. The Veteran was discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve in October 1987. The March 1990 Navy Reserve reenlistment examination evaluated his spine as normal. In the concurrent March 1990 RMH, he denied current or past recurrent back pain. In the March 1991 and April 1992 ACPCs, he indicated 'no' for both questions. The September 1992 examination evaluated his spine as normal; in the concurrent September 1992 RMH, he denied current or past recurrent back pain. As noted, the Veteran indicated that he had few private treatment records because he did not have medical insurance and he rarely sought medical attention (July 2013 statement, September 2019 Board hearing). An April 2009 private family medicine record noted his complaint of neck pain with tingling in left arm and discolored spot of the left bicep. That record noted that a "[r]olling jack landed on [his] neck 2.5 yrs ago," which was treated "with chiropractor and motrin." The record assessed "Nonallopathic lesion of cervical region" and "nonallopathic lesion of thoracic region." A June 2022 VA examination diagnosed lumbosacral strain with a 2001 date of diagnosis. At that VA examination, the Veteran reported that "his back began to hurt while running and bending over during service. Approximately 8-9 years ago he had an x-ray by a chiropractor who he states all of his back and shoulder problems are due to his knee condition." A June 2022 VA medical opinion relied on his denial of recurrent back pain in the September 1992 RMH to support its finding of that the disability was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. An August 2024 VA examination diagnosed degenerative arthritis, degenerative disc disease, and intervertebral disc syndrome. He reported at the VA examination that his thoracolumbar spine disability had its onset in 1981 due to his knees buckling in the shower after ripping his knee tendons. The concurrent August 2024 VA medical opinion determined that his disabilities were less likely than not incurred in or caused by in-service injury, event, or illness. In his July 2013 statement, the Veteran reported that he began to have feet and lower back problems approximately two years after leaving the Navy Reserve. He additionally stated that a doctor in Colorado told him his back problems were caused by his knees. In a July 2024 call with VA, he stated that "the injury he was filing for happen [sic] during his time with the USMC, that he didn't have trouble with that injury again until after he had left the Navy"; it is unclear what injury is being referenced. At the September 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that since his injury while on PT, "I've had ongoing feet problems, ankle problems, lower back problems." The Board finds his statements of in-service back symptoms and injury are not credible based on the inconsistencies in his statements (in-service injury and symptoms reported at the VA examinations versus reporting back problems beginning after leaving the Navy Reserve); his consistent denial of current or past recurrent back pain, despite reporting other symptoms (November 1981, May 1983, April 1986, March 1990, and September 1992 RMHs); his regular denial of having a physical deficit which he believed might restrict performance (June 1982, June 1983, June 1984, June 1985, June 1986, March 1991, and April 1992 ACPCs); and his regular examinations evaluating his spine as normal (November 1981, May 1983, April 1986, March 1990, and September 1992 examinations). Because the lay statements are not credible, the Board gives them no weight. Instead, the Board relies on the medical evidence, which found no link to service. There is no medical opinion supporting such a link. The VA medical opinions determined that his thoracolumbar spine disabilities are less likely than not incurred in or caused by in-service injury, event, or illness. The Board acknowledges that the January 2025 brief argued that an in-service automobile accident occurred, based on an STR. This assertion misconstrued the STR and personnel records, however. The July 9, 1982 STR in question - an examination to determine physical qualification for ACDUTRA - indicated that he was in an automobile accident the previous week. The accident therefore preceded the period of ACDUTRA. This is supported by personnel records, which document ACDUTRA service from July 10 to 25, 1982. The Board additionally notes that the Veteran has not indicated that he experienced an automobile accident in service. Therefore, the Board finds that the referenced automobile accident did not occur during service. In sum, the evidence is neither evenly nor approximately balanced regarding whether service connection for thoracolumbar disability is warranted. His knee disabilities - an asserted cause - are not service connected. There is no credible evidence of injury to the Veteran's spine, complaints of thoracolumbar symptoms, or treatment for his spine while in service, and the medical evidence does not support a link to service. The evidence therefore persuasively weighs against the claim and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. Lynch,?21 F.4th 781-82. Entitlement to service connection for thoracolumbar spine disability is accordingly denied. Foot Disability The Veteran asserts that service connection is warranted for his feet disabilities due to his bilateral knee disabilities. Alternatively, he reports that his feet disabilities began in service. Initially, the Board notes that his knee disabilities are not service connected. This precludes secondary service connection as due to his knees, which was his primary theory for service connection. In STRs, the October 1980 enlistment examination evaluated his feet as normal. In the July 1981 STR, he reported right lower tibia and fibula pain. The November 1981 examination for "leaving active duty" evaluated his feet as normal and he denied current or past foot trouble in the concurrent November 1981 RMH. The July 1982 STR to determine his physical qualification for ACDUTRA noted that he "was in auto accident last week. Has minor bruises L hip, several healing lacerations, No limitations at this time." He was found physically qualified for ACDUTRA. The May 1983 examination evaluated his feet as normal, and he denied current or past foot trouble in the concurrent May 1983 RMH. The April 1986 examination evaluated his lower extremities as normal; he denied current or past foot trouble in the concurrent April 1986 RMH. In the June 1982 ACPC, the Veteran indicated 'yes' when asked if he had an injury, illness, or disease in the past 12 months which required hospitalization or caused him to be absent from school or work for more than 3 consecutive days, though he marked 'no' when asked if he had any physical deficit which he believed might restrict performance. In the June 1983, June 1984, June 1985, and June 1986 ACPCs that followed, he indicated 'no' for both questions. The Veteran was discharged from the Marine Corps Reserve in October 1987. The March 1990 Navy Reserve reenlistment examination evaluated his feet as normal. In the concurrent March 1990 RMH, he reported current or past cramps in legs but denied current or past feet trouble; the medical officer noted these as "cramps in leg - when overdoing running." In the March 1991 and April 1992 ACPCs, he indicated 'no' for both questions. The September 1992 examination for explosives duty qualification evaluated his feet as normal; in the concurrent September 1992 RMH, he reported current or past cramps in legs but denied current or past foot trouble. For records following service, the Veteran stated in the July 2013 statement that he did not receive medical treatment for his feet - except once in 2009 in Colorado - because he did not have medical insurance. He also testified at the September 2019 Board hearing that he rarely sought medical treatment: "I'm not a person who goes to the doctors very often. Unless I'm really hurting, I don't go because I feel it's a waste of my time because most of the doctors that I've met try to treat a symptom, not the problem." The first post-service treatment records associated with the claims file are the private family medicine records from April 2009 to June 2009 in Colorado. These records noted complaints of neck pain with tingling in the left arm; back pain; and skin discoloration on the left arm; his feet are not addressed. A February 2020 VA examination diagnosed metatarsalgia of the feet, with the date of diagnosis listed as 2020. The Veteran reported at the VA examination that he had been told his bilateral foot pain is due to his knee disabilities. A February 2020 VA medical opinion indicated that there was no evidence of foot problems during service. A January 2021 VA medical opinion found it less likely than not that the Veteran's feet disabilities were caused by the condition noted in the July 1981 STR because the STR "refer[s] to 'R[ight] lower Tib[ia] fib[ula] pain' This is often referred to as shin splints. Shin splints are a lower leg problem and do not impact feet." A June 2022 VA examination diagnosed bilateral plantar fasciitis and listed the date of diagnosis as 2014. The Veteran reported at the VA examination that "he developed foot pain after his knees buckled and he fell. Shortly thereafter he noticed foot pain while climbing stairs." A June 2022 VA medical opinion found the feet disabilities were less likely than not incurred in or caused by in-service injury, event, or disease, noting the report of no current or past foot trouble in the September 1992 RMH as well as the lack of "complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for a right or left foot disorder until" the February 2020 VA examination. An August 2024 VA examination diagnosed plantar fasciitis, listing the date of diagnosis as the date of the VA examination. The Veteran reported that his feet conditions began in 1981 after he ripped the tendons in both knees during a PT run. A November 2024 VA medical opinion determined that the feet disabilities were less likely than not incurred in or caused by service because the STRs mention right tibia/fibula pain (and Veteran reported the leg cramps in the RMH) but not any foot disorders or issues. The VA medical opinion further cited the normal examinations in October 1980 and March 1990 as well as the September 1992 post-service evaluation which do not report foot issues. In the July 2013 statement, the Veteran reported that "[he] began to have feet and lower back problems" approximately two years after leaving the Navy reserve. He additionally stated that a doctor in Colorado told him his feet problems were caused by his knees. In the July 2024 call with VA, he stated that "the injury he was filing for happen [sic] during his time with the USMC, that he didn't have trouble with that injury again until after he had left the Navy"; it is unclear what injury is being referenced. At the September 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that since his injury while on PT, "I've had ongoing feet problems, ankle problems, lower back problems." The Board finds his statements of in-service feet symptoms and injury are not credible based on the inconsistencies in his statements (in-service injury and symptoms reported at the VA examinations versus reporting feet problems beginning after leaving the Navy Reserve); his consistent denial of current or past foot trouble, despite reporting other symptoms (November 1981, May 1983, April 1986, March 1990, and September 1992 RMHs); his regular denial of having a physical deficit which he believed might restrict performance (June 1982, June 1983, June 1984, June 1985, June 1986, March 1991, and April 1992 ACPCs); and his regular examinations evaluating his feet as normal (November 1981, May 1983, April 1986, March 1990, and September 1992 examinations). Because the lay statements are not credible, the Board gives them no weight. Instead, the Board relies on the medical evidence, which found no link to service. There is no positive medical opinion supporting such a link. The VA medical opinions determined that his feet disabilities are less likely than not incurred in or caused by in-service injury, event, or illness. Thus, the evidence is neither evenly nor approximately balanced regarding whether service connection for feet disabilities is warranted. His knee disabilities - an asserted cause - are not service connected. There is no credible evidence of injury to the Veteran's feet, complaints of foot symptoms, or treatment for his feet while in service, and the medical evidence does not support a link to service. The evidence persuasively weighs against the claim; accordingly, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. Lynch,?21 F.4th 781-82. Entitlement to service connection for left foot disability is denied. Similarly, entitlement to service connection for right foot disability is denied. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board W. Ripplinger, 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.