HEMORRHOIDS EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL

LESLEY A. REIN · 2026 · Case ID: 26005116

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served from August 1969 to May 1971, appeals the denial of service connection for hemorrhoids and the remand of claims for cervical spine disability, sinusitis, and headache disorder. The veteran asserts these latter conditions are related to an in-service attack in December 1969 and subsequent service-related duties. The Board denied service connection for hemorrhoids, finding no evidence of a current disability or functional impairment during the appeal period, referencing the Saunders and Wait decisions. The Board noted the veteran's service treatment records showed normal findings at separation and no post-service treatment for hemorrhoids. The Board also considered but rejected remanding the hemorrhoid claim for a new examination, as it found no evidence of a current diagnosis or functional impairment. The Board then addressed the remanded claims for cervical spine disability, sinusitis, and headache disorder. The veteran's claims stem from an alleged in-service attack and subsequent service duties. While the RO obtained deck logs for the veteran's ship, it could not locate command or aviation histories to corroborate the attack. The Board found the VA examiners' negative nexus opinions inadequate because they relied solely on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence and failed to adequately consider the veteran's competent lay testimony regarding his symptoms and in-service events. The Board remanded these three conditions for new, adequate examinations and opinions, directing examiners to consider the veteran's lay statements and any potential etiologies.

Rationale

No current disability shown during appeal period; Service treatment records normal at separation; No post-service treatment for hemorrhoids

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

20-23 741

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26005116
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 20-23 741
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for hemorrhoids is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence does not show the Veteran has had a current disability manifested by hemorrhoids during the appeal period.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for hemorrhoids have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to May 1971.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In a May 2024 decision, the Board denied service connection for hemorrhoids and remanded the remaining issues for evidentiary development. The Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for hemorrhoids to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In January 2025, the parties signed a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) requesting that the Court vacate the May 2024 Board decision as to that issue. The Court granted the motion, and the appeal (including the remanded issues) now returns to the Board for review.

The Board notes that in his April 2020 VA Form 9, the Veteran requested a Board hearing. He was scheduled for a hearing in February 2022. However, the Veteran failed to appear for the hearing with no reason provided. In its May 2024 decision, the Board determined the hearing request was deemed withdrawn under 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d); however, the JMPR states the Board erred when it failed to ensure the Veteran was afforded the requested hearing. Notably, a November 2021 notice letter informing the Veteran of the scheduled February 2022 hearing was returned to sender, and the parties agreed there was confusion surrounding VA's notice to the Veteran such that he should be afforded another chance to appear for a Board hearing.

To comply with the JMPR, the RO sent the Veteran a letter in August 2025 notifying him that a videoconference Board hearing was scheduled in December 2025. The letter provided the specific date, time, and location of the hearing. The Veteran did not appear for the hearing with no reason provided. The Veteran was again scheduled for a Board hearing in March. In January 2026, the RO sent the Veteran a letter notifying him of the specific date, time, and location of the March 2026 hearing. The Veteran failed to appear for that hearing as well, with no reason provided.

A March 2026 Report of General Information shows the Veteran's representative contacted the RO on the day of the scheduled hearing, stating they had tried to call the Veteran to see if he was going to log in to the virtual hearing, but the call went to voicemail. The representative also noted they had sent 30-day and 15-day hearing reminders to the Veteran, with no response.

The RO's hearing notice letters were not returned to sender, and there is no other indication that the Veteran may have changed his address; he did not provide an updated address. The law provides for a presumption of regularity as to processes and procedures throughout the VA administrative process. See generally Marsh v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 381, 386-87 (2005); Crain v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 182, 186 (2003); Redding v. West, 13 Vet. App. 512, 515 (2000). To rebut the presumption, a claimant must submit "clear evidence" that VA did not follow regular practices or that its practices were not regular; and assertions alone, without some other evidence, are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity. Romero v. Tran, 33 Vet. App. 252, 260-65 (2021). Here, there is not even an assertion from the Veteran that he did not receive notice of the Board hearings scheduled in December 2025 and March 2026. His representative indicated the Veteran was notified not just by the RO but also by the representative. However, the Veteran did not appear for either hearing, with no reason provided. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran
515 (2000). To rebut the presumption, a claimant must submit "clear evidence" that VA did not follow regular practices or that its practices were not regular; and assertions alone, without some other evidence, are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of regularity. Romero v. Tran, 33 Vet. App. 252, 260-65 (2021). Here, there is not even an assertion from the Veteran that he did not receive notice of the Board hearings scheduled in December 2025 and March 2026. His representative indicated the Veteran was notified not just by the RO but also by the representative. However, the Veteran did not appear for either hearing, with no reason provided. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran's hearing request is deemed withdrawn under 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d).

Pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159.

Here, regarding the claim denied below, neither the Veteran nor his representative have identified any errors on VA's part in developing the claim. The Board is aware the Veteran was not given a VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination for his claimed hemorrhoids. However, in the absence of competent evidence indicating he had a disability manifested by hemorrhoids at any time during the appeal period, no such examination was warranted. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83-86 (2006). The Veteran has not provided any argument relating to this condition. There is no indication of any error on VA's part. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board . . . to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board"); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

1. Entitlement to service connection for hemorrhoids is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for hemorrhoids. Because the evidence of record does not show a current disability causing functional impairment during the appeal period, the claim must be denied.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a link between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013).

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

The Veteran's service treatment records show he reported a history of occasional cramps, occasional indigestion, and mild hemorrhoids on a February 1969 enlistment questionnaire. A medical examination at enlistment was negative for hemorrhoids. At separation, in March 1971, the Veteran was examined and his anus and rectum were noted as normal. No further treatment for hemorrhoids is shown.

The Veteran's post-service medical records do not show diagnosis or treatment for hemorrhoids. He has not presented any specific evidence or argument regarding his claimed condition.

In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied "when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim . . . even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary's adjudication of the claim." McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); see also Romanowsky, supra.

The Board recognizes that in
1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied "when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim . . . even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary's adjudication of the claim." McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); see also Romanowsky, supra.

The Board recognizes that in Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) held that pain can constitute a disability under 38 U.S.C. § 1110. However, the Federal Circuit did not hold that a veteran could demonstrate service connection simply by asserting subjective pain. Rather, to establish a disability, the veteran's pain must amount to a functional impairment. The Federal Circuit held that to establish the presence of a disability, the veteran would need to show that his or her pain reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity. Id. at 1363.

A subsequent decision by the Court in Wait v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 8 (2020), provided further guidance on the Saunders test for establishing pain as a disability. Under Wait, the Court found that a disability under Saunders requires competent evidence demonstrating that the symptoms result in functional impairment that in fact affects the veteran's earning capacity.

In this case, the evidence does not show the Veteran has reported hemorrhoids or experienced any symptoms thereof during the appeal period. The evidence of record does not demonstrate any symptoms showing functional impairment affecting earning capacity. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran's claimed condition, to the extent it existed, did not rise to the level of a "current disability" under Saunders and Wait.

As a final matter, the Board notes it has considered remanding the claim to obtain a medical opinion pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1168, based on the Veteran's noted exposure to asbestos in service. However, the Board finds 38 U.S.C. § 1168(a), requiring a medical opinion that meets certain requirements in light of the Veteran's TERA history, does not apply here, as the evidence is against a finding of a current diagnosis of a functionally impairing hemorrhoid condition during the appeal period. See 38 U.S.C. § 1168(b).

Here, the Board finds an award of service connection for hemorrhoids must be denied for lack of a current disability. The evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to any evidence of a distinct, functionally impairing hemorrhoid condition. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), is not for application at this time. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

REASONS FOR REMAND

2. Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is remanded.

3. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded.

4. Entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder is remanded.

The Veteran contends his current cervical spine disability, sinusitis, and headache disorder developed as a result of his service. He contends these disorders stem from an incident in December 1969 when he was attacked and beaten at a pub in Nice, France while in port at Cannes. He claims he suffered a broken nose which resulted in a deviated septum which, in turn, led him to develop neck pain, sinus problems, and chronic headaches. The Veteran also asserts his cervical spine disability was caused by working long hours with heavy guns, lifting heavy projectiles, and loading the guns.

The Veteran's personnel records show he served aboard the USS Semmes from November 1969 to May 1971. In its May 2024 remand, the Board directed the RO make efforts to obtain any outstanding records which could confirm the Veteran's report of the December 1969 attack. The RO was able to obtain deck logs for the USS Semmes during the period in question. However, in January 2025, the RO received a Records Research Response noting that the NHHC was unable to locate the 196
in turn, led him to develop neck pain, sinus problems, and chronic headaches. The Veteran also asserts his cervical spine disability was caused by working long hours with heavy guns, lifting heavy projectiles, and loading the guns.

The Veteran's personnel records show he served aboard the USS Semmes from November 1969 to May 1971. In its May 2024 remand, the Board directed the RO make efforts to obtain any outstanding records which could confirm the Veteran's report of the December 1969 attack. The RO was able to obtain deck logs for the USS Semmes during the period in question. However, in January 2025, the RO received a Records Research Response noting that the NHHC was unable to locate the 1969 command history, ship history, or aviation historical summary for the USS Semmes. As a result, even with the deck logs, "no evidence was located to support documentation of the claimed event."

The Board appreciates the efforts to corroborate the Veteran's report of the December 1969 attack. Even in the absence of corroborating evidence, he is still considered competent to report matters within the realm of his personal observation, including what he has been told by a medical professional. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Moreover, his treatment records show he has been seen for many years for neck, sinus, and headache-related problems.

The RO obtained VA examinations for these conditions in October 2024, during which the Veteran restated his contention that the claimed conditions began in 1969 or 1970 during his service. VA examiners provided negative nexus opinions in October 2024 and March 2025, including opinions as to a possible link between the Veteran's documented TERA of asbestos exposure, and his claimed disabilities.

Unfortunately, the October 2024 and March 2025 VA medical opinions are inadequate. The examiners relied on the lack of "objective" evidence of in-service or immediate post-service treatment for the claimed conditions. Although the opinions acknowledge the Veteran's lay reports regarding the in-service attack and regarding in-service onset of neck, sinus, and headache symptoms, they do not appear to credit such reports as being competent evidence. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336, n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting an examiner's opinion, which relied on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence, "failed to consider whether the lay statements presented sufficient evidence of the etiology of [the veteran's] disability such that his claim for service connection could be proven without contemporaneous medical evidence"). The Board must remand these claims for updated examinations and opinions in order to ensure examiners consider the Veteran's competent lay reports regarding his medical history. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (where VA provides the veteran with an examination in a service connection claim, the examination must be adequate).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his cervical spine disability. The examiner is asked to review the claims file and provide the following information:

(a) Opine as to whether the Veteran's cervical spine disability had its onset in or is otherwise related to active service.

(b) The examiner should specifically discuss the Veteran's lay assertions as to his symptom history, noting he is competent to report symptoms within the realm of his personal observation. The examiner should discuss the Veteran's reported attack and beating in December 1969 while stationed in France, which he claimed resulted in neck injury. Also consider the Veteran's report of suffering neck injury while carrying heavy items and firing weapons.

The examiner should set forth all examination findings, with clear rationales for the conclusions reached.

2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his sinusitis. The examiner is asked to review the claims file and provide the following information:

(a) Opine as to whether the Veteran's sinusitis had its onset in or is otherwise related to active service.

(b) The examiner should specifically discuss the Veteran's lay assertions as to his symptom history, noting he is competent to report symptoms within the realm of his personal observation. The examiner should discuss the Veteran's reported attack and beating in December 1969 while stationed in France, which he claimed resulted in a broken nose, deviated septum, and subsequent sinus-related problems.

The examiner
determine the nature and etiology of his sinusitis. The examiner is asked to review the claims file and provide the following information:

(a) Opine as to whether the Veteran's sinusitis had its onset in or is otherwise related to active service.

(b) The examiner should specifically discuss the Veteran's lay assertions as to his symptom history, noting he is competent to report symptoms within the realm of his personal observation. The examiner should discuss the Veteran's reported attack and beating in December 1969 while stationed in France, which he claimed resulted in a broken nose, deviated septum, and subsequent sinus-related problems.

The examiner should set forth all examination findings, with clear rationales for the conclusions reached.

3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his headache disorder. The examiner is asked to review the claims file and provide the following information:

(a) Opine as to whether the Veteran's headache disorder had its onset in or is otherwise related to active service.

The examiner should set forth all examination findings, with clear rationales for the conclusions reached.

LESLEY A. REIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board C. Ryan, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer