ALLERGIC RHINITIS

Summary

The Veteran, a Marine Corps veteran who served from September 1986 to September 1990, appeals the denial of service connection for a sinus condition, claimed as rhinitis, which he asserts originated during service following a pool incident where he believes he sustained a nasal fracture. The Veteran's lay testimony and statements consistently report sinus symptoms beginning in service and continuing thereafter. The Board found this lay evidence to be competent and credible, establishing the onset of symptoms during service. While a February 2025 VA medical opinion found the allergic rhinitis less likely than not related to service due to a perceived lack of chronicity, the Board found this opinion disregarded the Veteran's consistent accounts. The Board concluded that the evidence, including the Veteran's consistent lay statements and the temporal relationship between service and the onset of symptoms, was at least in approximate equipoise. Applying the benefit of the doubt, the Board found service connection for rhinitis warranted. The Board granted service connection for rhinitis.

Rationale

Competent and credible lay evidence of symptom onset during service; Consistent lay statements and testimony; Temporal relationship between service and symptom onset; Resolving doubt in Veteran's favor

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 25008594
Decision Date: 06/30/25	Archive Date: 06/30/25

DOCKET NO. 19-23 079
DATE: June 30, 2025

ORDER

Service connection for rhinitis (claimed as nasal fracture) is granted.  

FINDING OF FACT

Resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Veteran's rhinitis, had its onset in and is related to service.  

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for rhinitis have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.  

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 1986 to September 1990.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from November 2017 and January 2018 rating decisions issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

The Veteran testified before the undersigned Acting Veterans Law Judge in an April 2022 virtual hearing.  

This matter was previously before the Board in June 2023 and February 2025 and remanded for additional development.  

Service Connection 

Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.? See Shedden v. Principi,?381 F.3d 1163?(Fed. Cir. 2004).?????? 

Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. ?38?C.F.R. §?3.303(d).?????? 

The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. ?38?U.S.C. §?7104(a); Baldwin v. West,?13?Vet. App.?1?(1999); see?38?C.F.R. §?3.303(a).?????? 

In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the weight of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. ?38?U.S.C. §?5107.? When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant.?????? 

To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must persuasively stand against a finding that the evidence is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal" to the evidence that supports the claim.? Lynch v. McDonough,?21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).?????? 

The Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence.? Buchanan v. Nicholson,?451 F.3d 1331?(Fed. Cir. 2006).? The evaluation of evidence generally involves a 3-step inquiry.? First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a "competent" source.? The Board must then determine if the evidence is credible, or worthy of belief.? Barr v. Nicholson,?21?Vet. App.?303?(2007) (Observing that once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible).?????? 

The third step of this inquiry requires the Board to weigh the probative value of the proffered evidence in light of the entirety of the record.? The Board also notes that under certain circumstances, lay evidence may be sufficient to establish a nexus.? Davidson v. Shinseki,?581 F.3d 1313, 1316?(Fed. Cir. 2009); Layno v. Brown,?6?Vet. App.?465, 469?(1994).? Lay evidence has been found to be competent with regard to a disease that has "unique and readily identifiable features" that are "capable of lay observation."? Barr v. Nicholson,?21?Vet. App.?303, 308-09?(2007); Petitti v. McDonald,?27?Vet. App.?415, 427-28?(2015) (where the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
 lay evidence may be sufficient to establish a nexus.? Davidson v. Shinseki,?581 F.3d 1313, 1316?(Fed. Cir. 2009); Layno v. Brown,?6?Vet. App.?465, 469?(1994).? Lay evidence has been found to be competent with regard to a disease that has "unique and readily identifiable features" that are "capable of lay observation."? Barr v. Nicholson,?21?Vet. App.?303, 308-09?(2007); Petitti v. McDonald,?27?Vet. App.?415, 427-28?(2015) (where the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims found objective evidence of pain need not come from a medical professional; a lay person may provide the requisite confirmation).?????? 

In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record.? A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of symptoms.? Layno v. Brown,?6?Vet. App.?465, 470?(1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge).? Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional.? Davidson v. Shinseki,?581 F.3d 1313, 1316?(Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson,?492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77?(Fed. Cir. 2007).?????? 

Service connection for rhinitis (claimed as nasal fracture) is granted.  

The Veteran seeks service connection for his sinus condition, which he asserts is related to service as his symptoms had its onset in service.  See January 2017 Veteran statement; April 2022 hearing transcript.  The Veteran thought that he suffered a nasal fracture while coming up from the bottom of a swimming pool when he was hit in the face by the knee of someone else jumping into the pool, as he has had sinus symptoms since that time.  Id.; see also November 2017 VA examination.  

Here, as explained below, the Board finds that all three elements of direct service connection are established by the competent and credibly lay and medical evidence of records as to the Veteran's rhinitis.? 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).??

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of rhinitis.  See November 2017 VA examination; June 2024 VA records.  ??

As to the in-service disease or injury element, the Veteran's August 1987 STRs reflect the sinus symptoms discussed by the Veteran following his pool incident.  See also April 2022 hearing transcript.   

As the finder of fact, the Board concludes that the first and second element of service connection can be reasonably conceded.? All that remains to be resolved is whether the medical evidence of record establishes a link between the Veteran's service and his rhinitis.  

In the February 2025 VA medical opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran's allergic rhinitis was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness.  The examiner's rationale was based on a lack of chronicity during and since service.   Here, the February 2025 VA examiner effectively disregarded the Veteran's competent and credible lay account of having issues with sinus symptoms since service, reported during the November 2017 VA examination, and in the April 2022 hearing and failed to address the facts specific to the Veteran. 

As indicated above, the Veteran reports that he had symptoms of sinus problems during service, and he has had continuous symptoms in the years since service.? See January 2017 Veteran statement; November 2017 VA examination; April 2022 hearing transcript.  

The Board finds that the consistent lay statements and testimony constitute competent and credible evidence that his current sinus symptoms began during service and have been recurrent since that time.? 

For the above reasons, the evidence is, at worst, evenly balanced or approximately so with regard to whether the Veteran's diagnosed rhinitis had its onset during service.? See Flynn v. Brown, 6?Vet. App.?500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship
 during service, and he has had continuous symptoms in the years since service.? See January 2017 Veteran statement; November 2017 VA examination; April 2022 hearing transcript.  

The Board finds that the consistent lay statements and testimony constitute competent and credible evidence that his current sinus symptoms began during service and have been recurrent since that time.? 

For the above reasons, the evidence is, at worst, evenly balanced or approximately so with regard to whether the Veteran's diagnosed rhinitis had its onset during service.? See Flynn v. Brown, 6?Vet. App.?500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"); see also 38?C.F.R. §?3.303(a) (Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces).??? 

In light of the foregoing, and after resolving any doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that service connection for rhinitis is warranted.? See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).??? 

 

 

N. Rippel

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	S. Nettles, Associate 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.