ALLERGIC RHINITIS

Summary

The Veteran, who served from January 2004 to November 2004, March 2009 to April 2010, and January 2015 to January 2016, including deployments to Kuwait and Iraq, appeals the denial of service connection for allergic rhinitis. The Veteran's service in Kuwait and Iraq after August 2, 1990, presumptively establishes exposure to burn pits and other toxins (BPOT) under 38 U.S.C. § 1119. A July 2024 VA examination confirmed a current diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. The Board found that allergic rhinitis is one of the diseases enumerated under 38 U.S.C. § 1120 as presumptively related to in-service toxic exposure. Consequently, service connection for allergic rhinitis was granted on a presumptive basis due to the presumed BPOT exposure, in accordance with the PACT Act. The appeal was granted.

Rationale

Veteran served in Kuwait and Iraq after August 2, 1990, presumptively establishing BPOT exposure.; Allergic rhinitis is an enumerated disease presumptively related to in-service toxic exposure under 38 U.S.C. § 1120.; Service connection granted presumptively under PACT Act due to presumed BPOT exposure.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26032587
Decision Date: 04/08/26	Archive Date: 04/08/26

DOCKET NO. 250303-520539
DATE: April 8, 2026

ISSUE

Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis.

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is GRANTED.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of allergic rhinitis and served on active duty in Kuwait and Iraq after August 2, 1990.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for allergic rhinitis are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1119, 1120, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act, Pub. L. No. 117-168 § 3373, 136 Stat. 1759 (2022).

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY?? 

The Veteran served on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States from January 2004 to November 2004, from March 2009 to April 2010, and from January 2015 to January 2016.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2023 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2024, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, and requested readjudication of the June 2023 disability claim.  

In the March 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Appellant elected the Direct Review docket.  38?C.F.R. §?20.301. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the decision on appeal and evidence submitted with the supplemental claim. 38?C.F.R. §?20.301.

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. 

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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this Decision.? 

REASONS AND BASES FOR THE FINDING AND CONCLUSION

Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this Decision, there is no requirement that every piece of evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West,?218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81?(Fed. Cir. 2000); Timberlake v. Gober,?14?Vet. App.?122, 128-130?(2000).

Allergic Rhinitis

Burn pits and other toxins (BPOT) exposure is presumed for veterans who served in specific locations on or after specific dates. 38 U.S.C. § 1119. Here, the Veteran served in Kuwait from February 2004 to April 2004, June 2004 to September 2004, October 2004 to November 2004, April 2009, August 2009 to September 2009, December 2009, and March 2010. The Veteran also served in Iraq from April 2009 to August 2009, September 2009 to December 2009 and January 2010 to March 2010. Accordingly, the Veteran is presumed exposed to BPOT under 38 U.S.C. § 1119.

Certain enumerated diseases will be presumed related to service for veterans with in-service toxic exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 1120. Chronic rhinitis is one
 from February 2004 to April 2004, June 2004 to September 2004, October 2004 to November 2004, April 2009, August 2009 to September 2009, December 2009, and March 2010. The Veteran also served in Iraq from April 2009 to August 2009, September 2009 to December 2009 and January 2010 to March 2010. Accordingly, the Veteran is presumed exposed to BPOT under 38 U.S.C. § 1119.

Certain enumerated diseases will be presumed related to service for veterans with in-service toxic exposure. 38 U.S.C. § 1120. Chronic rhinitis is one of those enumerated diseases, and a July 2024 VA examination shows that the Veteran has a current diagnosis for this condition. Id. 

(Continued on the next page)

?

Accordingly, service connection is warranted, pursuant to the PACT Act, for allergic rhinitis on a presumptive basis given the Veteran's presumed BPOT exposure. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1119, 1120. The appeal is granted.

 

 

STEVEN V. ADLER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K. Cross, 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.