BVA Case 10-0889: Back

The Board noted that the appellant's service treatment records show no signs of a spine injury.

the Board finds the examination[]to be sufficient, and thus that VA had adequately fulfilled its duty to assist.

The Board found that the appellant's assertions regarding continuity of symptoms since service were unpersuasive.

The Board noted that the January 2009 VA examiner found it less likely than not that the appellant's current disabilities are due to his service,and that there is no contrary medical opinion of record.

The Board concluded: Based upon the clinically normal findings on the [appellant's]separation examination,the amount of time between service and the [appellant's]first documented medical complaint,as well as the VA examiner's uncontradicted 3 negative nexus opinion,the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim.

As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim,the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable.

The appellant next contends that the Board member at his November 2009 hearing failed to explain the issue of nexus,failed to inform him that his January 2009 VA medical examination did not support his claim because the examiner did not find a nexus between his current disability and a service-related injury,and failed to suggest that he obtain and submit evidence of a nexus.

Finally,the appellant argues that the Board failed to discuss whether the benefit of the doubt rule should apply.