Case A26031779

MICHAEL MARTIN · 2026 · Case ID: A26031779

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran served from June 1979 to August 1992. The Veteran initially appealed the denial of service connection for a right knee disability, a right elbow disability, and bilateral hearing loss. However, the Veteran subsequently withdrew these appeals in January 2025, leading to their dismissal by the Board. The Veteran also appealed the denial of an earlier effective date for service connection for tinnitus and bilateral flat feet, seeking an effective date prior to December 19, 2018. The Board denied these appeals, finding that no claim for tinnitus or flat feet was reasonably made prior to December 19, 2018, which was the date of the Veteran's formal claim for these conditions. The Board applied the regulations in effect at the time of the claims, noting that the Veteran's earlier 1992 claim did not identify tinnitus or flat feet. Finally, the Veteran sought a compensable initial rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae. The Board denied this claim, finding that the condition did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7820 and the General Rating Formula for the Skin, as it affected less than 5 percent of the body and did not require systemic therapy. The Board concluded that the evidence weighed against the appeal, and the doctrine of reasonable doubt was not applicable.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210805-177139

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26031779
Decision Date: 04/07/26 Archive Date: 04/07/26

DOCKET NO. 210805-177139
DATE: April 7, 2026

ORDER

The appeal seeking entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability has been withdrawn.

The appeal seeking entitlement to service connection for a right elbow disability has been withdrawn.

The appeal seeking entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss has been withdrawn.

Entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for tinnitus is denied.

Entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for flat feet, bilateral, is denied.

Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On January 22, 2025, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the Veteran that a withdrawal of the appeals seeking entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, a right elbow disability, and bilateral hearing loss is requested.

2. No communication was received from the Veteran prior to December 19, 2018, that may be interpreted as a formal or informal claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus or flat feet.

3. During the review period, the Veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae covered less than 5 percent of his entire body or 5 percent of the exposed areas affected, and did not require the use of systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal seeking entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

2. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal seeking entitlement to service connection for a right elbow disability by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

3. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal seeking entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

4. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5110, 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.160 (2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(c), 3.159, 3.400.

5. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for flat feet, bilateral, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5110, 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.160 (2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(c), 3.159, 3.400.

6. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable initial rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.400, 4.3, 4.7, 4.21, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7820.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from June 1979 to August 1992.

In March 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a March 2019 decision. In August 2020, the Regional Office (RO) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior March 2019 decision.

In his August 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), for this appeal, the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On January 21, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2019 RO decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the RO issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 20.801.

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

The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as to address any specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). The Veteran should not assume that evidence that is not explicitly discussed in the decision has been overlooked. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (noting that the law requires only that reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant be addressed).

Withdrawn Issues

1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability

2. Entitlement to service connection for a right elbow disability

3. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to identify the specific determination with which the claimant disagrees. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d). An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

A written withdrawal must include (1) the name of the Veteran, (2) the applicable VA file number, and (3) a statement that the appeal is withdrawn. If the appeal involves multiple issues, the withdrawal must specify that the appeal is withdrawn in its entirety or list the issue(s) withdrawn from the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205(b)(1); Hembree v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 1 (2020).

In January 2025, the Veteran requested withdrawal of his appeals seeking entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, a right elbow disability, and bilateral hearing loss. All of the aforementioned required elements for a written withdrawal of the appeals are present in the withdrawal. Accordingly, the appeals as to those issues have been withdrawn, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review those appeals, and the appeals of those claims are dismissed.

Effective Date Issues

1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for tinnitus

2. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for flat feet, bilateral

The Veteran seeks an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for tinnitus and bilateral flat feet. He has not presented any particular argument as to why he believes an earlier effective date is warranted or identified a particular effective date that he believes is more appropriate.

The effective date for an award of service
does not have jurisdiction to review those appeals, and the appeals of those claims are dismissed.

Effective Date Issues

1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for tinnitus

2. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for flat feet, bilateral

The effective date for an award of service connection is the day following the date of separation from active service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year after separation from service. Otherwise, the effective date is the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a), (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b).

Regulations that were in effect prior to March 24, 2015, required that an informal claim "must identify the benefit sought." See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.160 (2014). The regulations also provided that a claim may be either a formal or informal written communication "requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit." 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p) (2014). The regulations in effect since March 24, 2015, require that claims be submitted on an application form prescribed by the Secretary and do not allow for informal claims not submitted on such a form. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.160 (2015). The Board will apply the regulations in effect prior to March 24, 2015, to communications received during that period.

The Veteran submitted a formal claim for service connection in August 1992 identifying exposure to smoke, right knee and right elbow injuries, a history of headaches, exposure to asbestos and radiation, low back pain, occasional high blood pressure, and a history of chest pain and irregular heartbeat as the disabilities for which he was seeking service connection. That claim and the evidence submitted or received in conjunction with it do not identify or discuss tinnitus or flat feet such that the August 1992 claim could be interpreted as requesting service connection for tinnitus or flat feet. As such, the claim cannot reasonably be interpreted as identifying service connection for tinnitus or flat feet as a benefit being sought, or as requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to such benefits. Therefore, that formal claim was not a claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus or flat feet and cannot serve as the basis for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for tinnitus or the grant of service connection for bilateral flat feet.

The earliest communication from the Veteran that may be interpreted as a formal or informal claim for entitlement to service connection for a tinnitus or flat foot is the Veteran's VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, that was received in December 2018, and that specifically identifies tinnitus and pes planus as disabilities for which service connection was being sought. Therefore, the current effective date of December 19, 2018, is the earliest available effective date. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a), (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155(b), 3.400(b).

In summary, no communication was received prior to December 19, 2018, that may be interpreted as a formal or informal claim for entitlement to service connection for tinnitus or for entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet. Therefore, the criteria for entitlement to an effective date earlier than December 19, 2018, for the award of service connection for tinnitus and service connection for bilateral flat feet have not been met. Thus, the Board concludes that the evidence for and against the appeals is not in approximate balance, but rather weighs against the appeals. Because there is not an approximate balance in the weight of the evidence, the doctrine of reasonable doubt is not for application, and the appeals must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Increased Rating Issue

Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae

The Veteran seeks a compensable initial rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae.
and service connection for bilateral flat feet have not been met. Thus, the Board concludes that the evidence for and against the appeals is not in approximate balance, but rather weighs against the appeals. Because there is not an approximate balance in the weight of the evidence, the doctrine of reasonable doubt is not for application, and the appeals must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Increased Rating Issue

Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae

The Veteran seeks a compensable initial rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae. The applicable review period is from December 19, 2018, the effective date for the award of service connection for that disability, through April 1, 2019, the date of notification of the RO decision on appeal, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The Veteran has not presented any particular argument as to why he believes a compensable initial rating is warranted or identified a particular rating that he believes is warranted.

Disability ratings are determined by the application of VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Schedule), which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Pertinent regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Schedule, but that findings sufficient to identify the disease and the resulting disability and, above all, coordination of the rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21; see also Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002).

When after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding the degree of disability such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two 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.

The Board will consider whether separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, a practice known as "staged ratings," in all claims for increased ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-27 (1999).

The Veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae is rated by analogy as noncompensable under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7820, which pertains to infections of the skin not listed elsewhere in the Schedule. The use of Diagnostic Code 7820 is appropriate in the Veteran's case because a January 2019 VA skin diseases examiner indicated that the Veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae is classified as an infection of the skin that is not otherwise listed.

Diagnostic Code 7820 directs the rater to rate the disability under the General Rating Formula for the Skin (General Formula).

Under the General Formula, a noncompensable rating is assigned where no more than topical therapy required over the past 12-month period and at least one of the following, or; there are characteristic lesions affecting less than 5 percent of the entire body, or; there are characteristic lesions affecting less than 5 percent of exposed area. A 10 percent rating is assigned where there is 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, psoralen with long-wave ultraviolet-A light (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 where there is at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving 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
ics, photochemotherapy, psoralen with long-wave ultraviolet-A light (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 where there is at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving 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 60 percent rating is assigned where there is 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, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required over the past 12-month period. The disability may be rated as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck under Diagnostic Code 7800 or as scars under Diagnostic Codes 7801, 7802, 7803, 7804, or 7805, depending on the predominant disability.

For purposes of the General Formula, systemic therapy is treatment that is administered through any route (orally, injection, suppository, intranasally) other than the skin, and topical therapy is treatment that is administered through the skin. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118(a).

In this case, the evidence of record demonstrates that the predominant disability is a condition of the skin to be rated under the General Formula rather than scars or disfigurement to be rated under Diagnostic Codes 7800, 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805. The January 2019 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae has not resulted in disfigurement of the head, face or neck, or in scarring such that Diagnostic Codes 7800, 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805 are applicable.

The Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the assignment of a compensable initial rating because the Veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae does not more nearly approximate characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas affected; or intermittent systemic therapy or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over the past 12-month period.

The Veteran told the January 2019 VA examiner that he addresses his pseudofolliculitis barbae by applying Vaseline to the skin, and that the condition has stayed the same. He denied any treatment with medications over the previous 12 months. On examination, the Veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae affected less than 5 percent of his total body area and less than 5 percent of the exposed skin. Such results do not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7820 and the General Formula. They do not indicate that the Veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae covered 5 percent or more of his entire body or 5 percent or more of the exposed areas affected, or that the pseudofolliculitis barbae required the use of systemic therapy during a 12-month period such that a compensable rating under the General Formula might be warranted.

Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues with regard to the rating for the service-connected pseudofolliculitis barbae, nor have any other such issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Yancy v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 484, 495 (2016); Doucette v. Shulkin, 38 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017).

In summary, during the review period, the Veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae covered less than 5 percent of his entire body or 5 percent of the exposed areas affected, and did not require the use of systemic therapy. The Board therefore finds that the criteria for entitlement to a compensable initial rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae have not been met. Thus, the Board concludes that the evidence for and against the appeal is not in approximate balance, but rather weighs against the appeal. Because
27 Vet. App. 484, 495 (2016); Doucette v. Shulkin, 38 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017).

In summary, during the review period, the Veteran's pseudofolliculitis barbae covered less than 5 percent of his entire body or 5 percent of the exposed areas affected, and did not require the use of systemic therapy. The Board therefore finds that the criteria for entitlement to a compensable initial rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae have not been met. Thus, the Board concludes that the evidence for and against the appeal is not in approximate balance, but rather weighs against the appeal. Because there is not an approximate balance in the weight of the evidence, the doctrine of reasonable doubt is not for application, and the appeal must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch, 21 F.4th 776.

MICHAEL MARTIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board T. J. Anthony, 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