MEMORY LOSS

ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER · 2026 · Case ID: 26003093

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran served from March 1969 to January 1973. He appeals the denial of service connection for memory loss and seeks remand for gastroesophageal disability, skin disability, and neuropathy secondary to a spinal condition. The Board denied service connection for memory loss, finding it to be a symptom of the Veteran's service-connected PTSD rather than a distinct disability. While service treatment records noted memory issues after a reported cardiac arrest, later records and VA examinations attributed the memory loss to PTSD. The Board found the Veteran's lay testimony regarding memory loss was not competent to establish a separate disability. The case was remanded for further development on the gastroesophageal disability, skin disability, and neuropathy claims. For the gastroesophageal claim, the Board found the prior VA opinion inadequate, requiring a new opinion on the etiology of dysphagia, its relation to GERD, and potential links to service, herbicide exposure, or PTSD. For the skin disability, the Board found the prior VA opinion inadequate, requiring an opinion on the etiology of diagnosed skin conditions proximate to the appeal period, even if no current disability was found. For the neuropathy claim, the Board found the prior VA opinions incomplete, requiring an opinion on the etiology of cervical and lumbar spine conditions and their relation to service, including potential secondary links to neuropathy, given the Veteran's history of falls and back pain.

Rationale

Memory loss attributed to PTSD, not a separate disability.; Lay testimony regarding memory loss not competent to establish separate disability.; Service treatment records noted memory issues, but later records and VA exams linked it to PTSD.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

14-39 871

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26003093
Decision Date: 03/06/26 Archive Date: 03/06/26

DOCKET NO. 14-39 871
DATE: March 6, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for memory loss is denied.

REMANDED

Service connection for a gastroesophageal disability (claimed as dysphagia or throat closing) is remanded.

Service connection for a skin disability is remanded.

Service connection for neuropathy, to include as secondary to a spinal condition, is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a separate and distinct memory loss condition for which service connection may be established.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for memory loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1969 to January 1973.

These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2011 rating decision which, in pertinent part, denied service connection for short-term memory loss, dysphagia, a skin rash, and neuropathy.

In January 2019, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a Board hearing. A copy of the transcript is of record.

In April 2019 and April 2024, the Board remanded the matters for further development.

In February 2025, the Board notified the Veteran that the VLJ who held his January 2019 Board hearing was no longer with the Board. In March 2025, the Veteran requested a new Board hearing. However, since then, the VLJ has returned to the Board. In November 2025, the Board requested clarification as to whether the Veteran still wanted another hearing and the Veteran declined. Therefore, the Board will proceed with appellate review.

Service Connection

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

Service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the veteran. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

Entitlement to service connection for memory loss.

The Veteran seeks service connection for memory loss. He asserts that he has had trouble with his memory since service.

Turning to the evidence of record, service treatment records reflect that in December 1971, the Veteran reported being hospitalized at the Jacksonville Naval Hospital in June 1971 where he was shocked for cardiac arrest. The Veteran reported he had extreme difficulty remembering things, and the treating clinician suspected the Veteran may have suffered hypoxic or anoxic cerebral damage but noted that a review of the June 1971 medical records would be required. Although follow-up was ordered with neurology, it does not appear that the Veteran attended a neurology appointment. However, a January 1973 examination associated with the Veteran's separation from service reflects that the Veteran denied memory loss. Upon objective examination, the Veteran's neurologic and psychiatric systems were normal.

Post-service VA treatment records dated in August 2008 when the Veteran established care reflect that the Veteran reported having short-term memory problems for over 20 years. VA treatment records are otherwise silent for a diagnosed memory condition.

During a March 2012 VA psychiatric examination, the Veteran reported that his short-term memory worsened during service and had worsened with age. The examiner indicated that the Veteran had mild memory loss and impairment of short- and long-term memory as a symptom of his posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD
However, a January 1973 examination associated with the Veteran's separation from service reflects that the Veteran denied memory loss. Upon objective examination, the Veteran's neurologic and psychiatric systems were normal.

Similarly, during a March 2020 VA psychiatric examination, the examiner indicated that the Veteran had impairment of short and long-term memory and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name, which the examiner attributed to the Veteran's PTSD and associated depression.

During a June 2022 VA psychiatric examination, the Veteran reported short-term memory problems, but the examiner noted that testing revealed his immediate memory was good. The examiner attributed the Veteran's mild memory loss to his PTSD and indicated that the Veteran did not have a separate memory disorder.

Upon review, the Board concludes that the Veteran's memory loss is a symptom associated with his PTSD, rather than a separate and distinct disability. Evidence of a present disability is necessary before service connection may be granted. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) ("Congress specifically limits entitlement to service-connected disease or injury where such cases have resulted in a disability . . . in the absence of a proof of present disability there can be no claim."). The requirement of a "current disability" is satisfied if a disorder is diagnosed at the time a claim is filed or at any time during the pendency of the appeal. See Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. Ap. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

The Board acknowledges service treatment records dated in December 1971 when the Veteran reported trouble remembering things after a cardiac arrest in June 1971. However, treatment records obtained in April 2022 from the Jacksonville Naval Hospital show only that the Veteran was hospitalized in April 1971 after accidental ingestion of a hallucinogenic drug. The records do not reflect that the Veteran suffered cardiac arrest.

While the Veteran believes he has a separate and distinct disability, he is not competent to provide diagnoses in this case. The issue is medically complex and requires specialized medical education. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence.

As the evidence of record indicates that the Veteran's memory loss is a symptom associated with his PTSD, and not separate and distinct disability, service connection is not warranted. There is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable. Accordingly, the Veteran's claim is denied.

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Service connection for a gastroesophageal disability (claimed as dysphagia or throat closing).

The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision at this time.

Service treatment records reflect the Veteran complained of nausea and vomiting in June 1969 and was diagnosed with a "nervous" stomach. In July 1970, he complained of chest pain and in October 1970, he complained of nausea and vomiting. In December 1970, he complained of chest pain after eating and was diagnosed with possible gastritis. On follow-up for continued chest pain, he was diagnosed with costochondritis. In January 1971, he complained of stomach pain and vomiting and was diagnosed with gastroenteritis. Six days later, he was seen with similar complaints and diagnosed with questionable enterocolitis. The next day, he presented with vomiting. The treating clinician noted a prior diagnosis of gastritis and prescribed maalox. In February 1971, the Veteran presented with complaints of stomach pain lasting for six weeks. His treating clinician diagnosed a parasitic gastrointestinal infection and prescribed a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic. The section pertaining to gastric issues on the Veteran's January 1973 Report of Medical History was not completed, but an objection examination of the abdomen was normal.

Post-service treatment records reflect that the Veteran reported periodic difficulty swallowing. His treating VA clinician diagnosed dysphagia and referred
. Six days later, he was seen with similar complaints and diagnosed with questionable enterocolitis. The next day, he presented with vomiting. The treating clinician noted a prior diagnosis of gastritis and prescribed maalox. In February 1971, the Veteran presented with complaints of stomach pain lasting for six weeks. His treating clinician diagnosed a parasitic gastrointestinal infection and prescribed a broad-spectrum anti-parasitic. The section pertaining to gastric issues on the Veteran's January 1973 Report of Medical History was not completed, but an objection examination of the abdomen was normal.

Post-service treatment records reflect that the Veteran reported periodic difficulty swallowing. His treating VA clinician diagnosed dysphagia and referred him to speech pathology. A September 2010 swallow study completed by speech pathology was normal.

During the January 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran reported symptoms since he was young, but he had ignored them. However, as the symptoms worsened, he had sought treatment.

VA afforded the Veteran an examination in February 2020. The Veteran reported acid reflux that worsened at night which he treated with Prilosec. The examiner provided a diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) with pyrosis, reflux, and sleep disturbances.

In a July 2022 medical opinion, an examiner opined that the Veteran's dysphagia less likely than not began during service, was caused by service, or was otherwise related to service as the Veteran's dysphagia was not noted until 2010, many years after separation from service.

In April 2024, the Board found the July 2022 medical opinion inadequate and remanded the claim to obtain a new medical opinion.

VA afforded the Veteran a medical examination in May 2024. The examiner provided a diagnosis of dysphagia with onset in 2010. The examiner opined that the Veteran's dysphagia was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. The examiner explained that the Veteran's dysphagia did not begin during service and was not caused by service. The examiner indicated that the Veteran did not have any conditions during service that posed a risk factor for the development of dysphagia. Furthermore, medical literature did not support the finding that exposure to herbicide agents could cause dysphagia. Rather, the Veteran's dysphagia was caused by a narrowing of the esophagus. The examiner further indicated that the Veteran's dysphagia was unrelated to complaints of chest pain and diagnosis of costochondritis during service as they were separate, unconnected diagnoses.

Upon review, the Board finds the May 2024 VA medical opinion inadequate. While the examiner explained that tumors or scar tissue, often caused by GERD, can cause narrowing, the examiner did not opine whether the Veteran's dysphagia due to narrowing of the esophagus was caused by the GERD diagnosed on VA examination in February 2020, was related to his in-service complaints of nausea and vomiting (in June 1969, diagnosed as "nervous stomach," and in October 1970), chest pain worsened by eating (December 1970, diagnosed as possible gastritis), stomach pain and vomiting (January 1971, diagnosed as gastroenteritis and questionable enterocolitis), and vomiting (January 1971, noted prior dx of gastritis). Furthermore, the examiner did not opine whether the Veteran's GERD was due to herbicide agent exposure, or whether the Veteran's GERD is secondary to his service-connected PTSD.

Remand is warranted to obtain a VA medical opinion.

2. Service connection for a skin disability remanded.

The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision at this time.

Service treatment records are silent for complaints related to a skin disability.

Post-service treatment records dated in August 2008 when the Veteran established care with VA reflect the Veteran reported a periodic rash on his foot and back. His treating clinician diagnosed tinea pedis. In August 2010, he reported a periodic itchy rash every few months. In August 2011, he reported a recurring rash on his arms and torso that he treated with calamine lotion. In January 2013, he complained of a groin rash. On examination, there was a rash with raised margins. The clinician diagnosed tinea. An October 2014 VA dermatology consult reflects complaints of an itchy pruritic rash in the groin. On examination, there were thick hyperpigmented plaques with white and pink poikiloderma and a few firm brown nodules. The clinician diagnosed lichen simplex chronic with prurigo nodules. In January 2019, the Veteran complained of
he reported a periodic itchy rash every few months. In August 2011, he reported a recurring rash on his arms and torso that he treated with calamine lotion. In January 2013, he complained of a groin rash. On examination, there was a rash with raised margins. The clinician diagnosed tinea. An October 2014 VA dermatology consult reflects complaints of an itchy pruritic rash in the groin. On examination, there were thick hyperpigmented plaques with white and pink poikiloderma and a few firm brown nodules. The clinician diagnosed lichen simplex chronic with prurigo nodules. In January 2019, the Veteran complained of an itchy rash on his upper back and arms. On examination, both arms were covered in a non-elevated hyperpigmented round lesions due to scratching. The clinician diagnosed dry skin or pruritus to be treated with lotion.

During the January 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran reported an intermittent rash beginning during service that he treated with creams or ointments.

VA afforded the Veteran an examination in February 2020. The Veteran reported experiencing hive-like red whelps for over 20 years. The examiner provided a diagnosis of eczema of the back, arms, and posterior knees.

In a July 2022 medical opinion, an examiner opined that the Veteran's skin disability less likely than not began during service, was caused by service, or was otherwise related to service as the Veteran's eczema was not noted until 2008, many years after separation from service.

In April 2024, the Board found the July 2022 medical opinion inadequate and remanded the claim to obtain a new medical opinion.

VA afforded the Veteran an examination in May 2024. The examiner indicated that the Veteran did not have a current skin disability. As there was no pathology to warrant a diagnosis or condition that could be related to the claimed toxic exposure, the examiner rendered a negative etiological opinion.

Upon review, the Board finds the May 2024 medical opinion inadequate. Applicable law holds that the current disability element is satisfied if a claimant has a disability at any time proximate to or during the appeal period, even if it should later resolve. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013). Thus, while the examiner indicated that the Veteran did not have a skin disability at the time of the May 2024 examination, the examiner should have rendered an opinion regarding the Veteran's diagnosed skin conditions during and proximate to the appeal period beginning in November 2010.

Remand is warranted to obtain a new medical opinion.

3. Service connection for neuropathy, to include as secondary to a spinal condition, is remanded.

The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision at this time.

Service treatment records reflect that in November 1969, the Veteran complained of pain in his left hip after falling down which was diagnosed as a contusion. In June 1970, the Veteran complained of gluteal stiffness after a fall. In August 1970, the Veteran was diagnosed with a bruised left thigh after a fall. In July 1971, the Veteran complained of back pain after lifting a heavy object. A January 1973 examination associated with the Veteran's separation from service reflects that the Veteran reported neuritis. The section to report recurrent back pain is incomplete. However, the spine was normal upon objective examination.

Post-service treatment records dated in August 2008 when the Veteran established care with VA reflect that the Veteran reported back problems and numbness in the left foot since a lifting injury. The clinician provided a diagnosis of chronic back pain and numbness in the left foot. An x-ray revealed degenerative disease in the lumbar spine. An October 2013 electromyography study was negative for evidence of peripheral neuropathy or entrapment in the left lower extremity. In September 2014, the Veteran reported tingling, twitching, and loss of sensation in the hands and feet after he returned from Vietnam. In February 2016, the Veteran reported numbness in his right foot with pain radiating from his right buttock down the leg to the foot. His clinician provided a diagnosis of chronic back pain causing right leg sciatica.

During the January 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran reported numbness running down his left leg and pain running up his left leg to his back starting 30 years earlier.

A February 2019 imaging of the lumbar spine revealed multi-level degenerative changes most significantly at L4-5 with severe central canal stenosis. His treating clinician diagnosed lum
, the Veteran reported tingling, twitching, and loss of sensation in the hands and feet after he returned from Vietnam. In February 2016, the Veteran reported numbness in his right foot with pain radiating from his right buttock down the leg to the foot. His clinician provided a diagnosis of chronic back pain causing right leg sciatica.

During the January 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran reported numbness running down his left leg and pain running up his left leg to his back starting 30 years earlier.

VA afforded the Veteran an examination in February 2020. The examiner provided a diagnosis of left upper and lower extremity neuropathy and left lower extremity radiculopathy.

In February 2020 and July 2022 VA medical opinions, examiners opined that the Veteran's left lower extremity neuropathy less likely than not began during service, was caused by service, or was otherwise related to service as the Veteran's low back pain was not noted until approximately 2006 or 2008, many years after separation from service.

In December 2023, the Veteran reported significant left-sided neck pain for the past year. He reported low back pain for many years with pain radiating down the left leg and numbness in the left leg. After imaging studies were obtained, his treating clinician diagnosed cervicalgia due to canal stenosis, foraminal stenosis, and degenerative changes as well as chronic low back pain due to severe canal stenosis and foraminal stenosis.

In April 2024, the Board found the February 2020 and July 2022 VA medical opinions inadequate and remanded the claim to obtain a new medical opinion.

VA afforded the Veteran an examination in May 2024. The Veteran reported pain radiating through the toes, legs, hip, and back. The examiner provided a diagnosis of bilateral upper and lower extremity neuropathy. The examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral upper and lower neuropathy was less likely than not incurred in or otherwise related to service, to include exposure to herbicide agents. Rather, the etiology of his symptoms was cervical and lumbar spinal stenosis.

Upon review, the Board finds the May 2024 medical opinion incomplete. If a condition for which VA benefits are sought are not directly associated with service, but information obtained during the processing of the claim reasonably indicates that the cause of the condition is a disease or other disability that may be associated with service, VA must generally investigate whether the causal disease or disability is related to service in order to determine whether the claimed condition is related secondarily to service. See DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 54-55 (2011).

Thus, because the Veteran's neuropathy has been related to his spinal conditions, and service treatment records show complaints of low back pain and several falls, remand is warranted to obtain an examination and medical opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran's spinal conditions.

The matters are REMANDED for the following actions:

1. Obtain the Veteran's VA treatment records from April 2024 to the present.

2. Obtain an opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of the Veteran's claimed gastroesophageal condition. The examiner must review the claims file. An in-person examination is not required unless deemed so by the examiner.

The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following:

Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's dysphagia due to narrowing of the esophagus was caused by the GERD diagnosed on VA examination in February 2020? If the examiner finds that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of GERD, the examiner should reconcile that finding with the February 2020 VA examination report diagnosing GERD.

If the Veteran's dysphagia is caused by GERD, is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's GERD began during or is otherwise related to active service, to include complaints of nausea and vomiting during service?

If the examiner finds that the Veteran's GERD did not begin during service or is not related to complaints of nausea and vomiting during service, is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's GERD is caused by herbicide agent exposure during service? The examiner should discuss the total potential exposure through all applicable military deployments and the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities of the Veteran. The examiner is advised that a negative opinion cannot be based solely on the fact that GERD is not on the list of diseases that are presumptively associated with exposure to herbicide agents.

If the examiner finds that the Veteran's GERD did not begin during service and is not related to in-service herbicide agent exposure, is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's GERD is due to or aggravated, i.e., made worse, by his service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder.

Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). Although a complete review of the claims file is required, the examiner's attention is drawn to complaints of nausea and vomiting (in June 1969, diagnosed as "nervous stomach," and in October 1970), chest pain worsened by eating (December 1970, diagnosed as possible gastritis), stomach pain and vomiting (January 1971, diagnosed as gastroenteritis and questionable enterocolitis), and vomiting (January 1971, noted prior dx of gastritis).

3. Obtain an opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the etiology of the Veteran's claimed skin disability. The examiner must review the claims file. An in-person examination is not required unless deemed so by the examiner.

For the purposes of responding to the following, the examiner should consider all skin disabilities diagnosed during or proximate to the period on appeal beginning in November 2010:

Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that a skin disability began during or is otherwise related to active service, including in-service herbicide agent exposure? The examiner is advised that a negative opinion cannot be based solely on the fact that the diagnosed skin disabilities are not on the list of diseases that are presumptively associated with exposure to herbicide agents.

Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). Although a complete review of the claims file is required, the examiner's attention is drawn to the Veteran's skin complaints (periodic rash of the foot and back, diagnosed as tinea pedis in August 2008; periodic itchy rash in August 2010; recurring rash on his arms and torso in August 2011; groin rash diagnosed as tinea in 2013; itchy pruritic rash in the groin diagnosed as lichen simplex chronic with prurigo nodules in October 2014; itchy rash on upper back and arms, diagnosed as dry skin or pruritus in January 2019; and diagnosis of eczema of the back, arms, and posterior knees by VA examination in February 2020) and lay statements of skin rashes during and since service.

4. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to assess the etiology of his cervical and lumbar spine conditions. The examiner must review the claims file.

The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following:

Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's cervical and/or lumbar spine condition(s) (1) began during or are otherwise related to active service, (2) manifested within one year after discharge from service, or (3) were noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service?

Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). Although a complete review of the claims file is required, the examiner's attention is drawn to a November 1969 complaint of pain in left hip after falling down, a June 1970 complaint of gluteal stiffness after a fall, an August 1970 fall which caused a bruised left thigh, a July 1971 complaint of back pain after a lifting heavy object, and the Veteran's lay statements pertaining to onset.

5. After completing the above, and any other development as may
or are otherwise related to active service, (2) manifested within one year after discharge from service, or (3) were noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service?

5. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the Veteran's claims should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claims remain denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC).

(Continued on next page)

An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order.

ROBERT C. SCHARNBERGER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Owen, Stephanie

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer