PERIPHERAL NERVE DISORDERS

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from September 1969 to September 1971, including service in the Republic of Vietnam from April 1971 to September 1971, appeals the denial of service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities. The Veteran contends this condition is due to herbicide agent exposure and manifested within a year of service with pain in his legs and feet. The Board acknowledged the Veteran's current diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy and conceded herbicide exposure due to his Vietnam service. However, the Veteran's service treatment records were silent regarding any complaints of peripheral neuropathy, and his separation examination in September 1971 indicated he was in good health. While the Veteran reported an insidious onset in 2010, he also made a lay statement in January 2019 claiming symptoms began within a year of service. The Board found this lay statement lacked credibility due to its generic nature, the nearly 50-year gap since service, and contradictions with other evidence, including his own report of a 2010 diagnosis. The Board afforded more weight to VA opinions which attributed the neuropathy to age-appropriate degeneration, finding it was less likely than not due to service or herbicide exposure. The Board concluded the condition did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of herbicide exposure and was not otherwise related to service. The benefit of the doubt doctrine was considered but found inapplicable as the evidence persuasively weighed against service connection. Service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities was denied.

Rationale

No in-service diagnosis or continuity of symptomatology; Lay statement regarding onset lacked credibility; VA opinions attributed condition to age-related degeneration

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26004967
Decision Date: 04/27/26	Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 18-06 167
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities was not shown as chronic in service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease, to include exposure to herbicide agents.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1969 to September 1971. 

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in October 2015 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office.

The Board previously remanded this case in November 2022, July 2024, and June 2025 for additional development. The case has now returned to the Board for further appellate review. As appropriate development has been completed, to include providing the Veteran with VA opinions, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the prior remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).

Entitlement to service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure.

The Veteran contends his bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy had its onset in or is otherwise directly related to his military service. Specifically, the Veteran contends that within a year of leaving service he suffered from pain in his legs and feet indicating his bilateral lower extremity peripheral neuropathy was caused by exposure to herbicide agents.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, to establish service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of 1) a current disability, 2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and 3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Where there is a chronic disease shown as such in service or within the presumptive period under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service-connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

Service connection may be established for chronic diseases, to include peripheral neuropathy, manifesting to a certain degree within a year after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309(a).

In addition, service connection may be established on a presumptive basis for certain diseases resulting from exposure to herbicide agents, such as Agent Orange, if a Veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period from January 9, 1962, to May 7, 1975, absent affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to such herbicide agent during that service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, certain diseases, including early-onset peripheral neuropathy, shall be service-connected even though there is no record of such disease during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service
 January 9, 1962, to May 7, 1975, absent affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to such herbicide agent during that service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(iii). If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, certain diseases, including early-onset peripheral neuropathy, shall be service-connected even though there is no record of such disease during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). The diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, except early-onset peripheral neuropathy shall have become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307 (a)(6)(ii).

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 the issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When a veteran seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the veteran prevails. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Turning to the evidence of record, there is no dispute that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of his bilateral lower extremities. See VA treatment records; February 2023 VA examination. Accordingly, the question before the Board is whether the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy was incurred in or otherwise caused by his service, to include exposure to herbicide agents.

The Veteran's DD214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, indicates the Veteran was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and served in the Republic of Vietnam from April 1971 through September 1971. Accordingly, exposure to herbicide agents is conceded. 

The Board notes the Veteran's service treatment records are silent as to any complaints of peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities or associated symptomology. Further, the Veteran's exit examination, conducted in September 1971 does not indicate a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy and at such time the Veteran indicated, "I am in good health". 

Notably, the Veteran contends his peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral extremities manifested within one year of service and symptoms included pain in his legs and feet. See January 2018 VA Form 9. The Veteran further contends he was "young and just forged on". However, the record indicates that during an August 2015 VA examination, the Veteran reported he was diagnosed with bilateral peripheral neuropathy in 2010. The Veteran reported an "INSIDIOUS ONSET OF BRUNING AND TINGLING OF THE FEET BIL. WHICH HAS BEEN PROGRESSIVE IN FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY." During a June 2018 VA examination, the Veteran reported he was reasonably healthy since his time in service but reported his memory problems were "driving me crazy". See June 2018 Agent Orange Examination Report. 

Notably, the Veteran has been provided numerous VA opinions related to the etiology of his peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities. The Board has already found the February 2023 and December 2024 VA opinions inadequate. The Board incorporates such findings herein by reference. 

In accordance with the July 2025 Board Remand, the Veteran was provided additional VA opinions regarding the etiology of his peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities. The VA examiner again opined the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities was less likely than not due to service, to include participation in toxic exposure risk activities (TERA). The VA examiner indicated the opinions were based upon the entirety of the Veteran's claims file, to include the Veteran's lay statements. The VA examiner indicated that while there is some evidence to suggest acute or subacute neuropathy may be associated with herbicide exposure, "The vet's condition is chronic and has had onset years after the service and not within 1 year. This is not acute or subacute." Further, the VA examiner indicated, "The vet's lower extremity peripheral neuropathy condition is due to age-appropriate and cumulative activity related degeneration." 

The Veteran reported that his lower extremity pain began within a year of leaving service, which
 than not due to service, to include participation in toxic exposure risk activities (TERA). The VA examiner indicated the opinions were based upon the entirety of the Veteran's claims file, to include the Veteran's lay statements. The VA examiner indicated that while there is some evidence to suggest acute or subacute neuropathy may be associated with herbicide exposure, "The vet's condition is chronic and has had onset years after the service and not within 1 year. This is not acute or subacute." Further, the VA examiner indicated, "The vet's lower extremity peripheral neuropathy condition is due to age-appropriate and cumulative activity related degeneration." 

The Veteran reported that his lower extremity pain began within a year of leaving service, which he is competent to report. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, the Board finds such report to lack credibility as such report was made almost 50 years after leaving service and does not provide any specific details regarding the onset or continuity of symptomology. Such is a factor against the Veteran's claim. The Veteran did not report specifically when the symptoms started, where they started, how he treated such symptoms, if such symptoms continued from when first observed until a formal diagnosis was made, or if he reported the symptoms to any others, to include health professionals. Instead, the Veteran's statement is generic in nature and is contradicted by other evidence of record, to include other statements made by the Veteran indicating his peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities manifested in 2010 and the onset was insidious and had worsened since such time. Further, within six months of providing the Veteran's lay statement, the Veteran reported he had memory issues that were "driving him crazy". Accordingly, while the Veteran is competent to report observable symptomology, the Board finds his January 2019 statement regarding the onset of his peripheral neuropathy to not be credible, and, accordingly, affords such statement no probative weight. The Board finds the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year after the last date in which the Veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent. 

The Board affords more probative value to the aforementioned VA opinions as such were based on the evidence of record and the Veteran's reported history of his symptomatology and provided medical literature to support such opinions. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008) (it is the factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion that contributes to the probative value of a medical opinion); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A]medical opinion... must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). 

Based upon the foregoing, the Board finds the Veteran's peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities did not have its onset in service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of being exposed to herbicide agents, and is not otherwise causally or etiologically related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include exposure to herbicide agents. Consequently, service connection for such disorder is not warranted. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the evidence persuasively weighs against the Veteran's service connection claim and thus is not in approximate balance. As such, the benefit of the doubt rule has no application, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

 

C. CRAWFORD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Hager, William J.

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.