DERMATITIS OR ECZEMA

FREDERIC P. GALLUN · 2026 · Case ID: A26022483

GRANTED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Army from August 1993 to June 2000, appeals a December 2020 VA rating decision. The veteran sought an increased rating for a service-connected skin disability, service connection for corns and callosities, tinea pedis, COPD, and allergies. The Board granted a 60 percent disability rating for the skin disability, finding that the veteran's skin condition met the criteria for this rating based on characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of the body or exposed areas. Service connection for corns and callosities was granted, with the Board finding the evidence evenly balanced and resolving doubt in the veteran's favor, supported by service treatment records showing visible corns and the veteran's competent testimony regarding onset and persistence. Similarly, service connection for tinea pedis was granted based on an even balance of evidence, including a VA foot examination diagnosis, service treatment records of foot issues, and the veteran's competent testimony, with doubt resolved in his favor. The Board dismissed the claim for COPD due to improper concurrent election of review options, as the veteran filed a supplemental claim while a Board appeal was already pending. The claim for allergies was dismissed as moot because the VA Regional Office granted service connection for rhinitis during the appeal period. The Board applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine to the skin disability, corns and callosities, and tinea pedis claims, leading to grants for these conditions.

Rationale

General Rating Formula for Skin applied; Characteristic lesions involving more than 40% of body/exposed areas; Benefit of the doubt resolved in veteran's favor

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210125-137927

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26022483
Decision Date: 03/12/26 Archive Date: 03/12/26

DOCKET NO. 210125-137927
DATE: March 12, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to a 60 percent disability rating for the service-connected "skin disability," to include pseudofolliculitis barbae, dermatitis, and eczema, is granted.

Service connection for corns and callosities is granted.

Service connection for tinea pedis is granted.

Service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is dismissed.

Service connection for an allergy disability, to include rhinitis, is dismissed as moot.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Throughout the appeal period, the evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's skin disability is manifested by characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected.

2. The evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's corns and callosities had their onset during active-duty service.

3. The evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's tinea pedis had its onset during active-duty service.

4. At the time the Veteran filed the June 2023 supplemental claim concerning entitlement to service connection for COPD which was adjudicated by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in a September 2023 rating decision, the Veteran previously had the January 2021 VA Form 10182 notice of disagreement pending before the Board regarding that same issue.

5. In a July 2024 rating decision, the AOJ granted service connection for rhinitis.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for a disability rating of 60 percent for the service-connected skin disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7813-7806.

2. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for service connection for corns and callosities are met.? 38?U.S.C. §§1110, 1131, 5107;?38?C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303.

3. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for service connection for tinea pedis are met.? 38?U.S.C. §§1110, 1131, 5107;?38?C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for dismissal of the appeal seeking service connection for COPD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b).

5. The Veteran's claim for service connection for an allergy disability is moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 2101(a), (b), 5107, 7105(d)(5); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.809, 4.63, 20.202, 20.204.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from August 1993 to June 2000. The Board recognizes the Veteran's service to our country, and the sacrifices it necessarily entailed.

This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2020 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In that rating decision, the RO continued a 10 percent disability rating for the service-connected pseudofolliculitis barbae (claimed as eczema) and denied service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), corns and calluses, tinea pedis, and allergies.

In a January 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on November 25, 2024, and the hearing transcript was added to the claims file.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2020 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran [or representative] at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on
inea pedis, and allergies.

Skin Disability

The Veteran asserts his service-connected skin disability warrants a disability rating in excess of 10 percent. See VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement, January 25, 2021.

Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life and employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10.

In determining the severity of a disability, the Board is required to consider the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA benefits, whether or not they were raised by the Veteran, as well as the entire history of the Veteran's disability. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991).

Where there is a question as to which of two disability ratings shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability is resolved in favor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

Where a claimant appeals the denial of a claim for an increased disability rating for a disability for which service connection was in effect before, he filed the claim for increase, the present level of disability is the primary concern, and past medical reports should not be given precedence over current medical findings. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 57-58 (1994).

In deciding this appeal, the Board has considered whether separate ratings for different periods of time, based on the facts found, are warranted, a practice of assigning ratings referred to as "staging the ratings." See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2008).

The Veteran's skin disability was rated under Diagnostic Code 7813 as noncompensable from June 23, 2000; under Diagnostic Code 7899-7806 as 10 percent disabling from March 22, 2011, and under Diagnostic Code 7813-7806 as 10 percent disabling from September 3, 2020. Throughout the period on appeal the Veteran's skin disability has been evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7806 and 7813. Under Diagnostic Code 7806 (Dermatitis or eczema) and 7813 (Dermatophytosis), are to be evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Skin.

Under this formula, a noncompensable rating is assigned for no more than topical therapy required over the past 12-month period and at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of the entire body affected; or characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of exposed areas affected. A 10 percent rating is assigned for at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; or at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas affected; or intermittent systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy
are to be evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Skin.

Under this formula, a noncompensable rating is assigned for no more than topical therapy required over the past 12-month period and at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of the entire body affected; or characteristic lesions involving less than 5 percent of exposed areas affected. A 10 percent rating is assigned for at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; or at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas affected; or intermittent systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over the past 12- month period.

A 30 percent rating is assigned at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving more than 20 to 40 percent of the entire body or 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of 6 weeks or more, but not constantly, over the past 12-month period. A maximum 60 percent rating is assigned for at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or constant or near-constant systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, psoralen with long-wave ultraviolet-A light (PUVA), or other immunosuppressive drugs required over the past 12-month period.

The most pertinent evidence of record includes a November 2020 VA Skin Conditions examination and VA treatment records.

The question before the Board is to what degree of the Veteran's body are affected by the "characteristic lesions" outlined in the General Rating Formula for Skin. For the purposes of this analysis, skin rashes will be considered characteristic lesions.

Although the November 2020 VA examiner indicated seeing eczema on the Veteran's eyelids, cheeks, and forehead, she marked that only 5 to 20 percent of the Veteran's total body area and exposed areas affected.

Treatment records show the Veteran exhibited "eczematic rash present on face, trunk, [upper extremities] and [lower extremities] in February 2022 and "Nummular Dermatitis" on his forehead, lower back, and both legs in November 2023. See Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility, November 25, 2024

Considering the pertinent evidence in light of the applicable rating criteria described above, the Board finds that the Veteran's skin disability symptoms have manifested in the type and extent, frequency, and/or severity, to warrant a maximum 60 percent disability rating, specifically characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of the entire body or more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 7813-7806.

The Board finds entitlement to a maximum disability rating of 60 percent for the entire period on appeal for the Veteran's skin disability is warranted.

Accordingly, a disability rating of 60 percent for the service-connected skin disability is granted. In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (2021).

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted when the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, or air service.? 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131;?38?C.F.R. §?3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. See Saunders v. Wilkie,?886 F.3d 1356, 1361?(Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first 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).

Under?38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b), an alternative method of establishing the second and third element is through a demonstration of
Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. See Saunders v. Wilkie,?886 F.3d 1356, 1361?(Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first 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).

Under?38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b), an alternative method of establishing the second and third element is through a demonstration of continuity of symptomatology if the disability claimed qualifies as a chronic disease listed in?38?C.F.R. §?3.309(a); sensorineural hearing loss is a qualifying chronic disease as such is included as an organic disease of the nervous system. See Walker v. Shinseki,?708 F.3d 1331?(Fed. Cir. 2013).

Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). Reasonable doubt means one which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. If the positive and negative evidence is in approximate balance (which includes but is not limited to equipoise), the claimant receives the benefit of the doubt. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Corns and Callosities

The Veteran asserts his current corns and callosities began in service and have continued to the present. Specifically, the Veteran asserts the corns and calluses on his feet began as a result of having to do physical training and different combat exercises while wearing combat boots. See Board Hearing at 4, 6,11, November 25, 2024.

According to treatment records, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of corns and callosities. See Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility, November 25, 2024.

The Veteran's service treatment records include photographs of his feet from active duty in which corns are visible. See STR - Medical, August 7, 2000.

The Veteran is competent to report the onset and persistent nature of corns and callosities symptoms. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology that is not medical in nature); Charles v. Principi,16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002) (holding that particularly with respect to claims for tinnitus, a veteran is competent to present evidence of a diagnosis and continuous symptoms).

Accordingly, the most probative medical evidence of record suggests that the Veteran has corns and callosities that onset during service. The evidence is therefore at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's corns and callosities are related to his active-duty service. As the reasonable doubt created by this relative equipoise in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, entitlement to service connection for corns and callosities is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303(d); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

Tinea Pedis

The Veteran asserts his current diagnosis of tinea pedis began in service and has continued to the present. Specifically, the Veteran asserts after basic training he was in a lot of wet conditions and although he changed his socks as recommended, the fact that the socks were made of wool resulted in his feet constantly sweating. See Board Hearing at 12, November 25, 2024.

According to the November 2020 VA foot examination, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinea pedis. See C&P Exam, November 23, 2020.

The Veteran's service treatment records include reports of
McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

Tinea Pedis

According to the November 2020 VA foot examination, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinea pedis. See C&P Exam, November 23, 2020.

The Veteran's service treatment records include reports of foot pain in June 2000. See STR - Medical, July 31, 2000.

Service treatment records show evidence of foot issues treated during active duty. The Board affords great weight to the Veteran's contemporaneous service treatment records and credible statements.

Accordingly, the most probative medical evidence of record suggests that the Veteran has a tinea pedis disability that began during service. The evidence is therefore at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's tinea pedis had its onset in service. As the reasonable doubt created by this relative equipoise in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, entitlement to service connection for tinea pedis is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303(d); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

COPD

Under the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), a claimant may generally seek one of three available administrative review options by filing the appropriate form following an AOJ decision. Those three review options are: (1) a Higher-Level Review request, (2) Supplemental Claim, or (3) Board appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 5104C; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500.

However, under the AMA, concurrent election is prohibited, meaning that once a Veteran has filed for review under one lane (i.e., Higher-Level Review, supplemental claim, Board review), he or she cannot seek review under a different lane while adjudication is pending in the previously selected lane. 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a)(2)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b).

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims (CAVC) emphasized VA's prohibition against concurrent election, holding that "a claimant is able to select a second administrative review option with respect to a decision on the claim, so long as the 1-year period from that decision has not run and the second administrative review option does not run concurrently with the first administrative review option." See Terry v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 1, 14 (2023). The CAVC's holding in Terry was expressly predicated on finding that multiple review requests were "not pending concurrently" as such would be prohibited under 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a)(2)(A). Id. at 4. Accordingly, the CAVC's holding in Terry makes clear that only one review option can be pursued at a time for any given issue or issues, due to the prohibition against concurrent election. Id. at 14.

Following review of the Veteran's claims file, the issue of entitlement to service connection for COPD must be dismissed as the Veteran selected improper concurrent election of multiple review options.

Following the December 2020 rating decision on appeal for the above issue, the Veteran filed a January 2021 VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement seeking review of the issue, and, while the appeal was still pending before the Board, the Veteran filed a June 2023 supplemental claim seeking entitlement to service connection for COPD at the same time.

Both the June 2023 supplemental claim and the January 2021 VA Form 10182 sought entitlement to service connection for
issues, due to the prohibition against concurrent election. Id. at 14.

Both the June 2023 supplemental claim and the January 2021 VA Form 10182 sought entitlement to service connection for COPD. The June 2023 supplemental claim was thus an improper concurrent election for this issue, as the January 2021 VA Form 10182 appeal remained pending before the Board. Nevertheless, the issue was again adjudicated by the AOJ in an October 2023 rating decision. The procedural defect of an improper concurrent election warrants dismissal of the claim for entitlement to service connection for COPD. See Hall v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 329 (2021); 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a)(2)(A); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(b); Terry v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 1 (2023).

Allergy Disability

During the pendency of the appeal, the RO issued a rating decision on July 12, 2024, granting service connection for rhinitis and assigned a noncompensable disability rating effective from October 20, 2022. The grant of service connection constitutes a full grant of the benefits sought on appeal with regard to service connection for an allergy disability, and the issue is therefore no longer before the Board. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158-59 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

(Continued on the next page)

Accordingly, the issue in the instant docket is dismissed as moot.

Frederic P. Gallun

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Ardalan, Nina

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