Entitlement to service connection for right wrist chronic pain is denied.

Citation Nr: A26069908 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 220630-255130 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right wrist chronic pain is denied. Entitlement to service connection for cervicalgia is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's right wrist disability is less likely than not related to his active-duty service. 2. The Veteran's cervicalgia is not related to his active-duty service. 3. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for a left ankle disability. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a right wrist disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for cervicalgia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for a left ankle disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army December 1975 to September 1976. The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. The AMA became effective on February 19, 2019. The AMA modernized review system applies to all claims for which VA issues a notice of an initial decision on or after the February 19, 2019 effective date of the modernized review system. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2021 and April 2022 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the June 2022 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD), the Veteran elected the hearing lane option therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence received up to the date of the rating decision and evidence received within 90 days of the date of the hearing. On November 12, 2025, the Veteran's representative provided written notice that the Veteran wished to withdrawal his request for a hearing. Thus, the Board will proceed with the evidence of record as of the rating decisions on appeal and within 90 days of the Veteran's withdrawal. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38?U.S.C. §?1110; 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, 38 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The absence of any one element will result in the denial of service connection. An examination or opinion is necessary if the evidence of record (1) contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) establishes that the claimant suffered an event, injury, or disease in service, or has a presumptive disease or symptoms of such a disease manifesting during an applicable presumptive period; and (3) indicates that the claimed disability or symptoms may be associated with the established event, injury, or disease in service, or with another service-connected disability; but (4) does not contain sufficient competent medical evidence to decide the claim. 38?C.F.R. §?3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20?Vet. App.?79 (2006) (discussing the four elements to consider in determining whether a VA medical examination must be provided). 1. Entitlement to service connection for right wrist chronic pain is denied. The Veteran contends that he has a right wrist disability related to his active-duty service. The Board finds the elements of service connection have not been met. With respect to current disability, the Veteran was diagnosed with right wrist arthralgia in a March 2022 rating decision. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran has a current disability. With respect to in-service incurrence, the April 2022 rating decision made a favorable finding that the Veteran was treated for right wrist pain in May 1976, while on active-duty service. Accordingly, the Board finds the in-service incurrence element has been met. The remaining question is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's current disability and in-service incurrence. In a March 2022 VA medical opinion, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's right wrist disability was less likely than not related to the Veteran's active-duty service. The examiner found that the Veteran's in-service wrist pain was acute only, and that there was no chronicity of the Veteran's condition from his separation from service. During the March 2022 VA examination, the Veteran reported the onset of his wrist pain was 2017, almost 40 years following his separation from service. The Board finds this opinion to be probative as it is based on review of the medical history, the evidence of record, the Veteran's lay statements, and is supported by a clear rationale. Thus, the most persuasive evidence is against a finding that there is a nexus between the Veteran's wrist pain in service and his current wrist arthralgia. Accordingly, the Board finds the elements of service connection have not been met, and the Veteran's claim is denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for cervicalgia/upper back is denied. The Veteran contends that he has a neck disability related to his active-duty service. The Board finds the elements of service connection have not been met. With respect to current disability, the Veteran was diagnosed with cervicalgia in October 2021 VA treatment records. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran has a current disability. With respect to in-service incurrence, the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for treatment or symptoms of a neck injury or disability. The Veteran has not provided any statements regarding an in-service incurrence in relation to his neck disability. The Board notes that the Veteran's representative provided a single paragraph medical abstract indicating generally that military soldiers carrying heavy loads can impact joints; however, neither the Veteran nor the representative provided any information regarding the Veteran and whether he carried heavy loads in service as part of his duties or training. Accordingly, the Board finds that the in-service incurrence element has not been met. The Board acknowledges that a VA examination has not been obtained; however, one is not warranted in this case. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). In this case, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis, there is no evidence of a connection between the claimed condition and service, and no evidence of an in service event, injury or disease related to this condition. Thus, the low standard of McLendon has not been met and a VA examination is not warranted. Id. Consequently, the Board finds the most persuasive evidence to be against finding that the Veteran's cervicalgia was incurred in service or is related to his active-duty service. Thus, service connection for cervicalgia is denied. 3. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is denied. The Veteran contends that he has a left ankle disability related to his active-duty service. The Board finds the elements of service connection have not been met. With respect to current disability, the Veteran's treatment records document the Veteran experiences left ankle pain; however, no formal diagnosis has been rendered throughout treatment records. Additionally, the Veteran was provided a VA examination in May 2017, which found the Veteran did not have a diagnosis related to his left ankle. The Board has considered the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Saunders v. Wilkie in which the Court found that where pain causes functional impairment, a disability for VA compensation purposes exists, even if there is no underlying diagnosis. 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, in the present case there is no evidence of pain which causes functional loss. Consequently, the Board finds the most persuasive evidence to be against finding that the Veteran has a disability related to his left ankle for which service connection can be granted. In the absence of proof of current disability, the claim of service connection may not be granted. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). There has been no finding of a current VA disability proximate to or during the pendency of the Veteran's claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). Accordingly, the Veteran's claim is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Under the AMA, the Board must remand a claim to correct an error by AOJ to satisfy its duty to assist the Veteran under 38?U.S.C. §?5103A, if the error occurred prior to the AOJ decision on appeal. 38?U.S.C. §?5103A (f)(2)(A); 38?C.F.R. §?20.802 (a). The Board may also remand a claim to correct any other AOJ error "in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating" the claim. 38?C.F.R. §?20.802 (a). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. The Veteran contends that he has an acquired psychiatric disability related to his active-duty service. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran filed a service connection claim for PTSD; however, the record indicates the Veteran has been diagnosed with depression as well as a mood disorder. As noted in?Clemons, a Veteran may not be competent to diagnosis his or her particular disability. See?Clemons?v. Shinseki,?23?Vet. App.?1?(2009). Thus, VA will not limit the scope of a claim solely to the diagnosis as reported by the Veteran. Accordingly, the Board finds it appropriate to recharacterize the Veteran's claim as a claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder. In the present case, the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination for his acquired psychiatric disorder. Review of the Veteran's VA treatment records provide both diagnoses and potential stressors in-service. The Veteran reported he was accused of breaking rules and was demoted, and that he saw starving children dying in Korea. The Board finds this information is sufficient to represent the in-service incurrence element and finds the low bar of McClendon has been met. Thus, remand is warranted for the Veteran to be afforded a VA examination for his acquired psychiatric disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature, onset, and etiology of his acquired psychiatric disability. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiners should be performed. The Veteran is competent to attest to observable events and symptomatology and such reports must be acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinion. If the Veteran's reports are discounted, the examiner should provide a reason for doing so. The examiners should address the following: (a.) Identify any psychiatric disorders present. (b.) Provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that any psychiatric disorders identified manifested in service, within one year of separation from service, or are otherwise related to service. Explain why or why not. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Risley, H 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.