Entitlement to service connection for chronic leg pain is denied.

Citation Nr: 26001464 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 20-28 442 DATE: January 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for chronic leg pain is denied. FINDING OF FACT A chronic leg disability is not shown to be due to, etiologically related to, or aggravated by any event, disease, or injury in service, or caused or aggravated by the service-connected disabilities. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for chronic leg pain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1970 to October 1972. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In September 2024, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the transcript is of record. In May 2025 and October 2025, the Board remanded this appeal to the AOJ for development. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900; 38 U.S.C. § 7107. 1. Entitlement to service connection for chronic leg pain. Service connection may be established for disability caused by disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to establish service connection for a claimed disability, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) evidence, generally medical, of a causal relationship between the disease or injury in service and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999). Service connection may also be established for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in-service. 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Cosman v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 503 (1992). The disease entity for which service connection is sought must be chronic rather than acute and transitory in nature. For the showing of chronic disease in service, a combination of manifestations must exist sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word chronic. Secondary service connection may be established for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of the facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(a)(2). Lay testimony is competent when it regards the readily observable features or symptoms of injury or illness and may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran is competent to provide testimony concerning factual matters of which the Veteran has firsthand knowledge, such as experiencing a physical symptom such as pain. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005). Therefore, the Board must assess the competence and credibility of lay statements. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while weight and credibility are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67 (1997). A Veteran need only demonstrate that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence to prevail. To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). While the Board must provide reasons and bases supporting a decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, the evidence submitted by or on behalf of the Veteran. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). The analysis will focus on the most salient and relevant evidence of record. The Veteran should not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed. Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for a disability manifesting with chronic leg pain which the Veteran asserts is due to or caused by accidents involving falling torpedoes in service. A November 2024 Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) Memorandum prepared by the AOJ concluded that the Veteran was potentially exposed to asbestos. The service medical records, including the separation examination from September 1972, do not show any indications of complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of any chronic leg condition, to include chronic pain. At a July 2025 VA examination, the examiner, a Physician's Assistant, diagnosed bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy. The examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) incurred in or caused by the claimed injury, event, or illness in service. The examiner explained that, according to the reviewed medical records, including the March 2016 neurology note, the Veteran's claimed condition of bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy likely developed about 46 years after the separation due to the alcohol or B12 deficiency, while the September 1972 separation examination did not show any bilateral lower extremity problems. The July 2025 examiner also opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) caused by the indicated toxic exposure risk activities, after considering the total potential exposure through all applicable service deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities of the Veteran. The examiner explained that, according to the reviewed VA website provided information, the Veteran's claimed condition of bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy was not known to be associated with the confirmed TERA of exposure to asbestos. Further, as consistent with the Yale Medicine website cited, the Veteran had several known peripheral neuropathy risk factors, such as alcohol use disorder and B12 deficiency according to a March 2016 neurology note, and rheumatoid arthritis according to June 2021 and September 2021 medical notes, that likely contributed to the bilateral lower extremities peripheral neuropathy and outweighed the toxic exposure. Therefore, the examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) caused by the indicated toxic exposure risk activities, after considering the total potential exposure through all applicable service deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities of the Veteran. In addition to several written statements, the Veteran also provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a September 2024 Board hearing. In that hearing, the Veteran discussed what he believed to be the cause of a current bilateral lower extremity disability and the effect it has had on his life. In support of the claim, the Veteran has provided statements regarding a link between the service and a diagnosed bilateral lower extremity disability. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's assertions that a bilateral lower extremity disability is the result of service. However, the Board finds that the weight of the adequate, competent, credible, and complete evidence is against a finding that any bilateral lower extremity disability is related to active service or caused or aggravated by service-connected disability. The Board finds that the Veteran, as a lay person without the appropriate medical training and expertise in diagnosing and treating disabilities, is not competent to provide a probative opinion as to whether a bilateral lower extremity disability was either caused or aggravated beyond the natural progression by any incident of active service, or by any service-connected disability. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Veteran has not been shown to possess the adequate medical knowledge, education, or training, to competently opine to the diagnosis or etiology of any disability. While the Veteran may state that he experienced pain or stiffness, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis of a specific disability, or to the etiology of any disability as those issues fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a layperson. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). That determination must be provided by a medical professional with the proper training, education and experience, in the appropriate fields. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board is not free to substitute its own judgment for a medical expert. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991). The Board finds the July 2025 VA examiner's opinion to be competent, credible, and persuasive. The July 2025 VA examiner opined that there was no evidence of a bilateral lower extremity disability that was related to service. The Board finds the July 2025 VA opinion to be more probative than the lay statements of record. The opinion of the July 2025 VA examiner is highly probative because it is supported by detailed rationale and provided by a trained medical professional. The VA examiner specifically identified and discussed the Veteran's contentions and theory concerning service and the claimed disability. Accordingly, the July 2025 VA examiner's opinion is found to carry significant weight. Among the factors for assessing the probative value of a medical opinion are the physician's access to the claims file and the thoroughness and detail of the opinion. Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60 (1993) (it is the responsibility of the Board to assess the credibility and weight to be given the evidence); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1992). The probative value of medical evidence is based on the physician's knowledge and skill in analyzing the data, and the medical conclusion reached. As is true of any evidence, the credibility and weight to be attached to medical opinions are within the province of the Board. Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467 (1993). To the extent that the Veteran's lay statements could be found to be competent and credible, the Board finds that they are outweighed by the July 2025 VA examination opinion because of the examiner's medical training. The Veteran has not submitted any adequate, competent, persuasive medical evidence which supports a finding that a bilateral lower extremity disability began during, was related to, or was aggravated by active-duty service or a service-connected disability. The Board finds that the July 2025 VA examiner opinion is more persuasive than the Veteran's assertions because of the thoroughness of the examination and opinion, with review of the medical history and examination of the Veteran. Accordingly, after a careful review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against the claim and against a finding that a bilateral lower extremity disability was incurred in, related to, or aggravated by service, or caused or aggravated by the service-connected disabilities. The most persuasive evidence of record does not support that contention. The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran. Therefore, the Board finds that the weight of the persuasive evidence is against the claim of entitlement to service connection for a chronic leg disability, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. M, 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.