Case A26027499

RAY BARTO SLABBEKORN, JR. · 2026 · Case ID: A26027499

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran served in the United States Marine Corps from August 2014 to August 2018. The Veteran appealed multiple denials of service connection for various conditions, including lumbosacral strain, left and right knee conditions, left and right ankle conditions, left and right hand conditions, athlete's foot/tinea pedis, right and left shin splints, erectile dysfunction, alopecia areata (hair loss), acne, cervical strain, and an acquired psychiatric disorder (including PTSD). The Board dismissed claims for lumbosacral strain, bilateral knee conditions, bilateral ankle conditions, and bilateral hand conditions, as these were not timely appealed from a prior October 2019 decision. For the remaining conditions, the Board denied service connection. For athlete's foot, shin splints, erectile dysfunction, alopecia areata, and the acquired psychiatric disorder, the Board found the first element of service connection—evidence of a current disability or diagnosis—was not met, as the Veteran lacked objective medical evidence or a confirmed diagnosis. Regarding acne, the Board found the Veteran had a pre-existing condition that was not aggravated by service, based on a probative VA DBQ and opinion. The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule to all denied claims but found the evidence persuasively favored denial, thus the rule did not alter the outcome. No special benefits were claimed or granted.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210520-161034

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26027499
Decision Date: 03/26/26 Archive Date: 03/26/26

DOCKET NO. 210520-161034
DATE: March 26, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral strain is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for a right hand condition is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for a left hand condition is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot/tinea pedis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right shin splints is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left shin splints is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for alopecia areata (hair loss) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for acne is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical strain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's claim for a lumbosacral strain was most recently decided in an October 2019 rating decision.

2. The Veteran's claim for a left knee condition was most recently decided in an October 2019 rating decision.

3. The Veteran's claim for a right knee condition was most recently decided in an October 2019 rating decision.

4. The Veteran's claim for a left ankle condition was most recently decided in an October 2019 rating decision.

5. The Veteran's claim for a right ankle condition was most recently decided in an October 2019 rating decision.

6. The Veteran's claim for a right hand condition was most recently decided in an October 2019 rating decision.

7. The Veteran's claim for a left hand condition was most recently decided in an October 2019 rating decision.

8. The Veteran does not suffer from athlete's foot/tinea pedis that began during active service or otherwise resulted from an in-service injury or disease.

9. The Veteran does not suffer from right shin splints that began during active service or otherwise resulted from an in-service injury or disease.

10. The Veteran does not suffer from left shin splints that began during active service or otherwise resulted from an in-service injury or disease.

11. The Veteran does not suffer from erectile dysfunction that began during active service or otherwise resulted from an in-service injury or disease.

12. The Veteran does not suffer from alopecia areata (hair loss) that began during active service or otherwise resulted from an in-service injury or disease.

13. The Veteran's acne, which clearly pre-existed his entry into service, was not aggravated (worsened in severity beyond its natural progression) by the Veteran's time in service.

14. The Veteran does not suffer from a cervical strain that began during active service or otherwise resulted from an in-service injury or disease.

15. The Veteran does not suffer from an acquired psychiatric disorder that began during active service or otherwise resulted from an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral strain have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.203.

2. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.203.

3. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.203.

4. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.203.

5. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.203.

6. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a right hand condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20
4. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a left ankle condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.203.

5. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a right ankle condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.203.

6. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a right hand condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.203.

7. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for a left hand condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.203.

8. The criteria for service connection for athlete's foot/tinea pedis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

9. The criteria for service connection for right shin splints are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

10. The criteria for service connection for left shin splints are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

11. The criteria for service connection for erectile dysfunction are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

12. The criteria for service connection for alopecia areata (hair loss) are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

13. The criteria for service connection for acne are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

14. The criteria for service connection for a cervical strain are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

15. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from August 2014 to August 2018.

In November 2019, the Veteran filed his initial claim for shin splints. In January 2020, the Veteran filed his initial claim for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In January 2020, a rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) denied service connection for the Veteran's claimed PTSD finding that there was no evidence of a stressful event in service among other reasons.

In February 2020, the Veteran filed a fully developed claim for service connection for acne, athlete's foot, and an additional claim for bilateral shin splints. In February 2020, the Veteran again filed a claim for PTSD. In March 2020, an RO rating decision denied service connection for acne, athlete's foot, and bilateral shin splints for failure to show a clinical diagnosis. In August 2020, the RO issued an additional rating decision confirming the denial of service connection for acne. In September 2020, the Veteran filed a claim seeking service connection for a penile condition, a neck condition, PTSD, and hair loss. In November 2020, the Veteran filed a new claim for a penile condition and PTSD. In November 2020, the RO issued a rating decision denying service connection for hair loss, a neck condition, and a penile condition as none of these disabilities had been clinically diagnosed. In December 2020, the Veteran requested higher level review (HLR) of the athlete's foot, bilateral shin splints, and acquired psychiatric disorder claims. In April 2021, a HLR rating decision continued the denials of service connection for athlete's foot, left shin splints, and right shin splints as there was no clinical diagnoses for these disabilities. However
a penile condition, a neck condition, PTSD, and hair loss. In November 2020, the Veteran filed a new claim for a penile condition and PTSD. In November 2020, the RO issued a rating decision denying service connection for hair loss, a neck condition, and a penile condition as none of these disabilities had been clinically diagnosed. In December 2020, the Veteran requested higher level review (HLR) of the athlete's foot, bilateral shin splints, and acquired psychiatric disorder claims. In April 2021, a HLR rating decision continued the denials of service connection for athlete's foot, left shin splints, and right shin splints as there was no clinical diagnoses for these disabilities. However, this same rating decision found a duty-to-assist error in the previous denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and found that additional records needed to be obtained. In May 2021, the RO again denied service connection for PTSD finding no nexus to the Veteran's service. In May 2021, the Veteran appealed the March 2020, August 2020, November 2020, and May 2021 rating decisions to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) via a VA Form 10182 (Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement)). The Veteran requested the hearing docket.

As part of his May 2021 appeal, the Veteran sought to appeal issues not raised in the rating decisions on appeal. The Veteran filed appeals for a lumbosacral condition, bilateral knee condition, bilateral ankle condition, and a bilateral hand condition. These issues were most recently before the RO in October 2019. The Veteran did not appeal that decision within one year following notification, and no new and material evidence was received within that timeframe, and the October 2019 decision became final. Therefore, as the appeal was filed in May 2021, these issues could not be appealed. Rather than dismiss the entire appeal as untimely, the Board will liberally interpret the appeal and consider the decision on appeal to be the most recent RO rating decisions. Scott v. McDonald, 789 Fed. Cir. 2015 (which requires the Board to read the pleadings liberally).

As an appeal in which the appellant requested, on the Notice of Disagreement, a Board hearing, the Board's decision is based on a review of the evidence of record at the time of the decision on the issues on appeal, evidence submitted by the appellant or his representative at the hearing, to include testimony provided at the hearing, and evidence submitted by the appellant or his representative within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). This decision reflects the Board's consideration of the testimony, evidence, and information presented at the hearing, and a transcript of the hearing is in the Veteran's claims file.

The Veteran initially filed for PTSD. The Board has recharacterized this claim as a claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include PTSD. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 6 (2009) (holding that the scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disability that may reasonably be encompassed by a claimant's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record).

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbosacral strain, a left knee condition, a right knee condition, a left ankle condition, a right ankle condition, a right hand condition, and a left hand condition.

As noted above, these issues were most recently before the RO in October 2019. This rating decision denied service connection for all seven listed issues. The Veteran did not appeal that decision within one year following notification, and no new and material evidence was received within that timeframe, and the October 2019 decision became final. Therefore, as the appeal was filed in May 2021, these issues could not be appealed.

This was also discussed by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at the November 2024 hearing. The transcript reflects that the eight issues discussed below are the actual issues the Veteran sought to appeal. Therefore, as these issues were not timely appealed, they are not properly before the Board, and they are dismissed.

Service Connection

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service." Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection may also be granted for a disease first diagnosed after discharge when all of 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. § 3.310(a), service connection may be granted for disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. Such permits a grant of service connection not only for disability caused by a service-connected disability, but for the degree of disability resulting from aggravation to a nonservice-connected disability by a service-connected disability. Id. See also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b).

In order to prevail on the issue of entitlement to secondary service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998).

Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a 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. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

Entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot/tinea pedis.

In February 2020, the Veteran filed his initial claim for athlete's foot. The Veteran blamed his condition on rigorous training and an inability to do proper foot care. The Veteran also acknowledged that he did not go to medical for this condition while in service.

At the Veteran's November 2024 hearing, he testified to first noticing this condition while in boot camp. He stated that his feet would get nasty little holes and that the skin would peel. The Veteran related it to the dirtiness of the floors, constant hikes, and the sweating in his shoes. The Veteran testified to not receiving any treatment for this in
38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

Entitlement to service connection for athlete's foot/tinea pedis.

As noted above, the first element of any service connection claim is evidence of a current disability. A review of the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) confirms his testimony that he was not treated for athlete's foot while in service. This condition was not noted on the February 2018 separation physical.

A further review of the available post-service medical records fails to show a confirmed diagnosis of athlete's foot and no treatment for any type of foot issues. There is no evidence of treatment for this disability and no diagnosis of athlete's foot. While the Board does not have reason to doubt the Veteran's testimony that he had foot issues while in service there is no objective medical evidence to confirm any diagnosis and no available evidence to show even treatment for such a disability. Therefore, the first element of service connection has not been met and the claim is denied.

The Veteran has not been afforded examinations for his athlete's foot presently on appeal. A medical examination or opinion is considered necessary when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006); see 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d). As there is no competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability an examination is not necessary.

Entitlement to service connection for right and left shin splints.

In the November 2019 initial claim, the Veteran sought service connection for shin splints that he attributed to going up and down hills at fast speeds while conducting exercises. He complained of constant stopping and straining which caused the shin splints. In a February 2020, he reiterated this same contention.

At his November 2024 hearing, the Veteran testified to the shin splints beginning while service in Japan due to the running up and down hills. The Veteran testified that he did not go to medical for this but instead self-medicated by rubbing his shins. When asked, he confirmed that he was never excused from physical training for this condition. The Veteran testified that he still suffers from shin splints especially during the winter with the right worse than the left.

A completed review of the Veteran's STRs confirms his testimony that he did not seek treatment for shin splints during his time in service. The Veteran's February 2018 separation physical does not include any complaints regarding shin splints. There were no acute concerns noted.

Following his exit from service, there are no available medical records to show that the Veteran complained of or sought treatment for his bilateral shin splints. The
The Veteran testified that he did not go to medical for this but instead self-medicated by rubbing his shins. When asked, he confirmed that he was never excused from physical training for this condition. The Veteran testified that he still suffers from shin splints especially during the winter with the right worse than the left.

Following his exit from service, there are no available medical records to show that the Veteran complained of or sought treatment for his bilateral shin splints. The Board is aware that even absent a diagnosis, pain can serve as a disability. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361-62 (2018). However, there is no available medical evidence to show that the Veteran continuously complained of pain in the bilateral shins.

While the Board does not have reason to doubt the Veteran's testimony that he believed he had bilateral shin splints while in service there is no objective medical evidence to confirm any diagnosis and no available evidence to show even treatment for such a disability. Therefore, the first element of service connection has not been met and the claim is denied.

The Veteran has not been afforded an examination for his bilateral shin splints, but as the available medical evidence does not show a diagnosis, no medical examination is necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006); see 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d).

Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction.

In September 2020, the Veteran filed his initial claim for what was then noted only as a penile condition. The Veteran described his condition as an inability to keep an erection which he attributed to stress. In his November 2020 fully developed claim he reiterated this belief.

At his November 2024 hearing, the Veteran testified to his belief that stress from his time in service caused him to be unable to get erect as easily as he once did. The Veteran was seen for this disability and given Viagra. He testified that his doctor told him this was stress related though there is no available documentation to that effect.

The Veteran's STRs do not contain any complaints of any penile or erectile dysfunction issues. The Veteran testified to using Viagra to help with obtaining and maintaining an erection. However, use of Viagra alone does not satisfy the first element of service connection. A complete review of the Veteran's available medical records fails to show a diagnosis of erectile dysfunction or any other penile condition. Therefore, the first element of service connection has not been met. However, even assuming arguendo that the use of Viagra satisfied the first element of service connection, the Veteran has not pointed to anything other than general stress from service as the cause of his claimed erectile dysfunction.

While the laypersons are competent to report observable symptoms, the Veteran is not competent to provide a medical opinion linking his claimed erectile dysfunction to his active service, as that would require medical knowledge, training, and expertise and is simply outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiology opinion in this case.

While the Board does not have reason to doubt the Veteran's testimony to his belief that he suffers from erectile dysfunction as a result of in-service stress there is no objective medical evidence to confirm any diagnosis and no available evidence to show even treatment for such a disability. Therefore, the first
dysfunction to his active service, as that would require medical knowledge, training, and expertise and is simply outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiology opinion in this case.

The Veteran has not been afforded an examination for his erectile dysfunction, but as the available medical evidence does not show a diagnosis, no medical examination is necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006); see 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d).

Entitlement to service connection for alopecia areata (hair loss).

In the September 2020 initial claim, the Veteran sought service connection for hair loss as a result of stress, and he also noted possible chemical exposure during training. The Veteran did not point to any specific exposures. A September 2023 toxic exposure risk activity memorandum concluded that the Veteran was a small arms repair technician who would have been completed TERA.

At his November 2024 hearing, the Veteran testified to his belief that his hair loss was the result of nonstop stress in-service. The Veteran did not point to any specific stressful event or any specific increase in stress that would have been above the general level of stress associated with military service. The Veteran testified that neither of his parents had suffered from hair loss, so he knows that his hair loss is not genetic. The Veteran did not see anyone in service or after service for treatment.

A completed review of the Veteran's STRs confirms his testimony that he did not seek treatment for hair loss during his time in service. The Veteran's February 2018 separation physical does not include any complaints regarding hair loss. There were no acute concerns noted.

Following his exit from service, there are no available medical records to show that the Veteran complained of or sought treatment for his hair loss.

While the Board does not have reason to doubt the Veteran's testimony that he believes he suffered hair loss as a result of stress in service there is no objective medical evidence to confirm any diagnosis and no available evidence to show even treatment for such a disability. Further, the Veteran testified to his parents both having hair and therefore his hair loss could not be genetic in nature. While the laypersons are competent to report observable symptoms, the Veteran is not competent to provide a medical opinion linking his hair loss to his active service or to rule out genetic factors, as that would require medical knowledge, training, and expertise and is simply outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiology opinion in this case.

Therefore, the first element of service connection has not been met and the claim is denied.

The Veteran has not been afforded an examination for his hair loss, but as the available medical evidence does not show a diagnosis, no medical examination is necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006); see 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d).

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered and applied the benefit-of-the
. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiology opinion in this case.

Therefore, the first element of service connection has not been met and the claim is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for acne.

In February 2020, the Veteran filed his initial claim for acne. He stated that he was given treatment in service but that simply made it worse and that it was worse at the time of filing.

At his November 2024 testimony, the Veteran testified that he had no acne in service until he started his job as an armor and had liquids and solvents on his face. The Veteran reported he was prescribed medicine in service and that its use resulted in scarring. The Veteran testified to his acne clearing up about one year after leaving service. The Veteran reported no active breakouts at the time of the hearing.

At the Veteran's November 2013 entrance examination acne was noted. November 2015 STRs show that the Veteran had acne present for the last five years. This directly contradicts his November 2024 testimony where he said he did not have acne in service until he began his role as an armor. In June 2016, the Veteran was prescribed tretinoin for his acne. The February 2018 separation examination did not include any acute concerns.

In deciding an aggravation claim, after having determined the presence of a preexisting disability, the Board must determine whether there has been any measurable worsening of the disability during service and whether this worsening constitutes an increase in disability. Browder v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1993); Hensley v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 155, 163 (1993). Temporary or intermittent flare-ups of the preexisting condition during service are not sufficient to be considered aggravation unless the underlying condition, as contrasted to symptoms, has worsened. Crowe v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 238, 247-48 (1994); Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296-97 (1991). Aggravation may not be conceded where the disability underwent no increase in severity during service on the basis of all the evidence of record pertaining to the manifestations of the disability prior to, during, and subsequent to service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (b).

In July 2020, the Veteran was afforded a disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) focused on his acne. The examiner confirmed a diagnosis of acne thus satisfying the first element of service connection. The Veteran stated that the acne was present during service. The Veteran was noted as having acne on his face and trunk. He was not on any medication and had undergone no treatment over the past 12 months. The Veteran's acne was on less than five percent of his total body area and his exposed area. The examiner described the Veteran's acne as superficial. A July 2020 DBQ focused on scars found the Veteran had scars around his mouth.

In July 2020, an accompanying DBQ medical opinion was asked to determine if the Veteran's acne was worsened by his service. The examiner stated that no, the acne was not worsened by the Veteran's service. The examiner discussed the Veteran's history including acne on enlistment in 2013 along with in-service treatment. The examiner
Veteran was noted as having acne on his face and trunk. He was not on any medication and had undergone no treatment over the past 12 months. The Veteran's acne was on less than five percent of his total body area and his exposed area. The examiner described the Veteran's acne as superficial. A July 2020 DBQ focused on scars found the Veteran had scars around his mouth.

The Board finds the July 2020 DBQ and accompanying medical opinion to be highly probative. The examiner discussed the Veteran's pre-existing history of acne and the treatment both in-service and post-service. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's acne was not aggravated by his time in service. The Veteran has not put forth any medical evidence to contradict this examiner's opinion. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran's acne was not aggravated by his time in service and the claim is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical strain.

In his initial September 2020 claim for service connection the Veteran stated that his neck condition was due to constant training and hikes.

At his November 2024 hearing, he testified to having a neck strain from carrying all the heavy guns. The Veteran testified that he did not go to medical and instead was told to take ibuprofen and move on. The Veteran testified to recently going to a VA hospital because his neck was always hurting. He testified that he underwent x-rays in July but that he was unsure of the results and did not receive any diagnosis. When asked, the Veteran denied ever being advised that any neck complaints were related to service. He also denied being provided a specific diagnosis.

A review of the Veteran's STRs confirmed his testimony that he did not seek treatment for a neck strain while in service. His February 2018 separation examination does not contain any acute concerns related to his neck.

The Veteran has not submitted any post-service medical records showing a diagnosis of any neck condition. The Veteran testified to being seen for neck complaints, but he denied being provided with a diagnosis and stated that he was not aware of the x-ray's findings.

A complete review of the available medical evidence fails to show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with any neck condition. Accordingly, the first element of service connection has not been met and the claim is denied.

The Veteran has not been afforded an examination for his cervical strain, but as the available medical evidence does not show a diagnosis, no medical examination is necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006); see 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d).

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered and applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. "When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant." 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). "Evidence is not in 'approximate balance' or 'nearly equal,' and therefore 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 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001
benefit-of-the-doubt rule. "When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant." 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). "Evidence is not in 'approximate balance' or 'nearly equal,' and therefore 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 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, the evidence persuasively favors a finding that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of a neck disability. Thus, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not change the outcome on this issue.

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

In January 2020, the Veteran filed his initial claim for PTSD. The Veteran reported that during his rigorous training he was belittled by the command stuff which caused extreme emotional damage. The Veteran reported that he had dirt and sand kicked in his face. In February 2020, the Veteran reported that he had trouble sleeping, including extreme sweating while sleeping. In September 2020, the Veteran reported that other soldiers would hit his rank on the shoulders causing the spikes to dig into his skin and that he was kneed heavily on the thigh. The Veteran reported that he has had nightmares since that day. In November 2020, he reported that he was put under constant pressure, extreme conditions, constant shame, constant yelling, and being hazed by other Marines.

At his November 2024 hearing, the Veteran testified that it was ultimately just the stress of service which he believed led to his acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran reported feeling anxious about not being able to fulfill his duties. He testified that he wakes up sweating and yelling in his sleep which only started after exiting service. The Veteran testified that he had no treatment or complaints while in service. The Veteran said he was not provided with a diagnosis of PTSD when he sought treatment but that he was referred to group therapy.

A review of the Veteran's STRs confirmed his testimony that he did not seek treatment for any acquired psychiatric disorder while in service. In September 2016, the Veteran was noted as negative for depression and was noted as having no current illness. In his February 2018 separation examination there were no acute concerns noted.

The Veteran has not submitted any post-service medical records showing a diagnosis of any acquired psychiatric disorder or any treatment for the same.

A complete review of the available medical evidence fails to show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with any acquired psychiatric disorder. Accordingly, the first element of service connection has not been met and the claim is denied.

The Veteran has not been afforded an examination for his acquired psychiatric disorder, but as the available medical evidence does not show a diagnosis, no medical examination is necessary. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006); see 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d).

(Continued on the next page)

RAY BARTO SLABBEKORN, JR.

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Ledman, Andrew

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.

that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder. Thus, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not change the outcome on this issue.

RAY BARTO SLABBEKORN, JR.

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Ledman, Andrew

Analyze in VA Law Explorer