HERNIA INGUINAL

Summary

The Veteran served in the U.S. Marine Corps from July 1996 to July 2008, and in the U.S. Army from August 2009 to June 2015. His service from August 2009 to June 2015 was characterized as under other than honorable conditions, and a subsequent administrative decision deemed his discharge dishonorable for VA benefits purposes. The Veteran appeals a March 2019 rating decision, seeking service connection for several conditions. The Board denied service connection for a left inguinal hernia, finding no current diagnosis or functional impairment, despite the Veteran's lay testimony. However, the Board granted service connection for a low back disability, right knee disability, bilateral hallux valgus with degenerative joint disease, bilateral shin splints, tinea versicolor, migraines, and a left shoulder disability. The Board noted that the Veteran's service treatment records for his initial 12-year honorable Marine Corps service were unavailable due to no fault of his own. Despite the claimed disabilities being documented during his later dishonorable service period, the Board found competent and credible lay statements from the Veteran, his ex-wife, and a fellow servicemember indicating the onset of symptoms during his first, honorable period of service. Considering the missing service records from his honorable service, his participation in combat during that time, and resolving reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board granted service connection for these conditions.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of left inguinal hernia; No functional impairment detected on examination; Lay testimony not sufficient to overcome lack of objective medical evidence

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26031197
Decision Date: 04/06/26	Archive Date: 04/06/26

DOCKET NO. 190509-19089
DATE: April 6, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for left inguinal hernia is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability is granted. 

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hallux valgus with degenerative joint disease is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral shin splints, claimed as tingling of the bilateral lower extremities, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for tinea versicolor is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for migraines is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The weight of the evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis, or functional impairment, of a left inguinal hernia.

2. The Veteran's low back disability had an onset during service.

3. The Veteran's right knee disability had an onset during service.

4. The Veteran's bilateral hallux valgus with degenerative joint disease had an onset during service.

5. The Veteran's bilateral shin splints had an onset during service.

6. The Veteran's tinea versicolor had an onset during service.

7. The Veteran's migraines had an onset during service.

8. The Veteran's left shoulder disability had an onset during service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left inguinal hernia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a low back disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral hallux valgus with degenerative joint disease have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral shin splints have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for tinea versicolor have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for migraines have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

8. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps from July 1996 to July 2008 and in the U.S. Army from August 2009 to June 2015. Personnel records indicate that the Veteran's character of service from August 2009 to June 2015 was under other than honorable conditions.

In a November 2015 administrative decision, VA found that the Veteran's character of discharge for his period of service from August 27, 2009, to June 17, 2015, was dishonorable. Any disability incurred during that dishonorable period of service may not be awarded VA compensation benefits.  

A rating decision was issued under the legacy system in April 2016, and the Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement. In March 2019, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a statement of the case (SOC). The Veteran opted the claims into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting a May 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision
 November 2015 administrative decision, VA found that the Veteran's character of discharge for his period of service from August 27, 2009, to June 17, 2015, was dishonorable. Any disability incurred during that dishonorable period of service may not be awarded VA compensation benefits.  

A rating decision was issued under the legacy system in April 2016, and the Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement. In March 2019, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a statement of the case (SOC). The Veteran opted the claims into the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), by submitting a May 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, identifying the March 2019 SOC. Therefore, the March 2019 SOC is the decision on appeal.

In the May 2019 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held in October 2023. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2019 SOC, 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 March 2019 SOC and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Service Connection

Under applicable law, service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). Regulations also provide that service connection may 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).

If the positive and negative evidence is in approximate balance, the claimant receives the benefit of the doubt. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

A lay witness is competent to testify as to the occurrence of an in-service injury or incident where such issue is factual in nature. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993). In some cases, lay evidence will also be competent and credible on the issues of diagnosis and etiology. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Specifically, lay evidence may be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis where (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. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1377; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).  A layperson is competent to identify a medical condition where the condition may be diagnosed by its unique and readily identifiable features. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307
Specifically, lay evidence may be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis where (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. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1377; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).  A layperson is competent to identify a medical condition where the condition may be diagnosed by its unique and readily identifiable features. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007).

Additionally, where symptoms are capable of lay observation, a lay witness is competent to testify to a lack of symptoms prior to service, continuity of symptoms after in-service injury or disease, and receipt of medical treatment for such symptoms. Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002).

Where a veteran served ninety days or more of active service, and certain chronic diseases become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year after the date of separation from such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). While the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumption period, it must be shown, by acceptable lay or medical evidence, that there were characteristic manifestations of the disease to the required degree during that time. Id. When there is insufficient evidence of a diagnosis in service (or within the presumptive period), service connection may be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) by demonstrating continuity of symptomatology since service (or the presumptive period). See Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

1. Entitlement to service connection for a left inguinal hernia.

The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for a left inguinal hernia. He asserts his claimed left inguinal hernia had an onset during his first period of service.

After a review of the evidence, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a left inguinal hernia. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in March 2015, at which time it was noted that the Veteran had a left inguinal hernia in service in 2010, however, it had resolved. The Veteran reported intermittent pain in the left inguinal area. The examiner indicated that there was no inguinal hernia detected on examination of the right or left side. There was no functional impact, and the examiner specifically indicated that the asserted disability did not impact the Veteran's ability to work. 

While the lay statements of record have been considered, the objective medical evidence does not reflect a diagnosis or functional impairment of a left inguinal hernia, at the time of the decision on appeal. The Board has considered the findings of Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the Federal Circuit held that "pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosis of a present disease, can qualify as a disability" if it "reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity." Id. at 1367-69. Here, however, the Board notes that the March 2015 VA examiner specifically indicated there was no functional impact and during the October 2023 Board hearing, although the Veteran indicated the hernia is visible when straining, he did not indicate it affects his earning capacity.

While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of a left inguinal hernia, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence, which indicates that at the time of the decision on appeal, the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of a left inguinal hernia.

Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for a left inguinal hernia is not warranted.

2.
 his earning capacity.

While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of a left inguinal hernia, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence, which indicates that at the time of the decision on appeal, the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of a left inguinal hernia.

Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for a left inguinal hernia is not warranted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disability.

3. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability.

4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hallux valgus with degenerative joint disease.

5. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral shin splints, claimed as tingling of the bilateral lower extremities. 

6. Entitlement to service connection for tinea versicolor.

7. Entitlement to service connection for migraines.

8. Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder disability. 

The Veteran contends that his low back disability, right knee disability, bilateral hallux valgus with degenerative joint disease, bilateral shin splints, tinea versicolor, migraines and a left shoulder disability manifested during his first period of service.

First, the Veteran was afforded VA examinations in March 2015 for the low back and right knee, at which time the VA examiner noted that the Veteran reported functional loss during flare-ups of the right knee and lumbar spine. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran has current functional impairments of the low back and right knee. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018).

The Veteran has current diagnoses of bilateral hallux valgus with degenerative joint disease, tinea versicolor, migraines, bilateral shin splints, and left shoulder rotator cuff tendonitis. See March 2015 VA examinations. 

In March 2016, VA Records Management Center (RMC) reported that after multiple searches, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) for the period he served in the U.S. Marine Corp, July 1996 to July 2008, were not located. Accordingly, the Veteran's service treatment records for this period are not available. In a case like this, there is a heightened obligation for VA to assist the claimant in the development of the claim and to provide reasons or bases for any adverse decision rendered without these records. O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). This heightened obligation does not establish a heightened benefit of the doubt or lower the legal standard for proving a claim of service connection. Rather, it increases the Board's obligation to evaluate and discuss in its decision all the evidence that may be favorable to the Veteran. See Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46 (1996).

Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's claimed disabilities had their onset during his period of service from July 1996 to July 2008. First, the Board notes that the Veteran's low back disability is documented in one of the few available service treatment records from the Veteran's first period of service. Specifically, in May 2003, the Veteran sought treatment in service, noting that he had experienced a several year history of low back pain with running. It was noted that scoliosis was suggested, but x-rays did not show abnormalities.

Service treatment records indicate that in December 2009, the Veteran was diagnosed with tinea versicolor; in October 2010, he was diagnosed with bilateral hallux valgus; in November 2010, he was noted to have degenerative changes of the knee. Additionally, during a November 2014 Report of Medical History for separation, the Veteran indicated that his left shoulder would pop when working out with weights, he experienced low back pain when running or sometimes lying down, he experienced numbness and tingling in his legs when bending over, he had frequent migraines, and he had a skin disorder, described as eczema on his body. Similarly, on the Report of Medical Examination for separation from service in November 2014, the examiner indicated the Veteran had left shoulder problems, low back pain, eczema, and migraines. The Board acknowledges that these service treatment records pertained to the Veteran's dishonorable period of service; however, the Veteran has testified and submitted additional lay statements, indicating that his claimed disabilities, while noted in his subsequent period of service, had an onset during his first period of service.

In March
 weights, he experienced low back pain when running or sometimes lying down, he experienced numbness and tingling in his legs when bending over, he had frequent migraines, and he had a skin disorder, described as eczema on his body. Similarly, on the Report of Medical Examination for separation from service in November 2014, the examiner indicated the Veteran had left shoulder problems, low back pain, eczema, and migraines. The Board acknowledges that these service treatment records pertained to the Veteran's dishonorable period of service; however, the Veteran has testified and submitted additional lay statements, indicating that his claimed disabilities, while noted in his subsequent period of service, had an onset during his first period of service.

In March 2016 and March 2017 statements, the Veteran asserted that his claimed disabilities occurred during his first period of service with the Marines. In March 2017, the Veteran's ex-wife submitted a statement, detailing how she knew him from 1998. She reported that the Veteran began experiencing right knee pain in 1999 after running and that he also suffered from migraine headaches, beginning in 1998. She also asserted he began experiencing left shoulder pain, low back pain, and pain in his lower legs, described as shin splints, during this time, noting that he did not seek treatment because it was frowned upon if Marines asked or went to sick call.

In March 2017, a statement from a fellow servicemember was also received. The service member indicated that he has known the Veteran since 1996, and that he remembered the Veteran complaining numerous times about tingling in his legs, experiencing low back pain, right knee pain while running, migraines, and left shoulder pain.

At the October 2023 Board hearing, the Veteran explained that his claimed disabilities had an onset during his first period of service, but that he did not seek treatment at the time because going to sick call was discouraged.

As noted, through no fault of his own, the service treatment records for the Veteran's honorable period of service are missing. Importantly, this duty period includes 12 years of service in the Marines and involves participation in combat service. See March 2019 rating decision. Although the claimed disabilities are documented during the Veteran's period of service that is considered dishonorable for VA benefits purposes, the Veteran's treatment records from the first period of honorable service are unavailable. Competent and credible lay statements from the Veteran, his ex-wife, and fellow service members indicate that his symptoms began during the first period of honorable service. VA examinations were conducted during the end of his service. The Board finds that the onset of the claimed conditions is coincident with the Veteran's active duty service. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) ("Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces.").  Therefore, considering that the Veteran's service treatment records for a period of 12 years are missing, the Veteran served in combat during that time, and resolving reasonable doubt in his favor, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for the claimed disabilities. 

								(continued on next page) 

 

TANYA SMITH

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	L. Andersen, 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.