IRRITABLE COLON SYNDROME (SPASTIC COLITIS MUCOUS COLITIS)

RYAN T. KESSEL · 2026 · Case ID: A26032772

MIXED

Summary

The veteran served from October 1989 to November 1996. The veteran appealed a February 2023 rating decision, seeking to reopen a January 16, 2019 rating decision denying service connection for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE). The Board denied the CUE motion, finding no undebatable error in the original decision. The original decision correctly noted the absence of an IBS diagnosis in service treatment records (STRs), despite the veteran's gastrointestinal complaints during service, which were diagnosed as gastroenteritis. The Board found the veteran's subsequent VA medical records from November 2018, which indicated IBS symptoms, were not clear and unmistakable evidence of a diagnosis, as the provider was not a specialist and the notation was ambiguous. The Board also denied service connection for hearing loss, finding the veteran did not meet the regulatory criteria for hearing loss based on audiometric testing from a February 2021 VA examination. The Board denied service connection for hypertension, as the veteran did not have a current diagnosis, and the VA examiner's opinion was probative and not controverted by the record. Service connection for Pseudofolliculitis Barbae (PFB) was granted. The Board found the original favorable finding of PFB in service consistent with STRs showing treatment and a shaving profile. Although post-service objective evidence was lacking, the Board found the veteran's management of symptoms by growing facial hair longer, as advised by a VA provider, indicated an inactive condition that would likely become active if he shaved. The Board found the December 2018 VA examiner's opinion unfavorable, as it was not conducted during an active phase and did not address the condition's potential reactivation. The Board found the evidence persuasively favored the PFB claim, applying the benefit of the doubt.

Rationale

No CUE found in prior denial of IBS; STRs did not contain IBS diagnosis; Gastrointestinal complaints in service diagnosed as gastroenteritis; November 2018 VA record ambiguous regarding IBS diagnosis

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

230216-325558

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26032772
Decision Date: 04/09/26 Archive Date: 04/09/26

DOCKET NO. 230216-325558
DATE: April 9, 2026

ORDER

The motion to reverse or revise on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE), a January 16, 2019 rating decision denying service connection for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), is denied.

Service connection for hearing loss is denied.

Service connection for hypertension is denied.

Service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The January 16, 2019 rating decision is final, but did not have the incorrect facts before it or misapply the law where it denied service connection for IBS.

2. The Veteran does not have hearing loss for VA purposes.

3. The Veteran does not have hypertension.

4. The Veteran's PFB arose during service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for revising or reversing on the basis of CUE, the final January 16, 2019 rating decision denying service connection for IBS, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5109A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105

2. The criteria for service connection for hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.385.

3. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 4.104.

4. The criteria for service connection for PFB 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 from October 1989 to November 1996.

The case is on appeal from a February 2023 rating decision.

In the February 2023 notice of disagreement (NOD) (VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2023 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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[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 Veteran was previously denied service connection for hearing loss and PFB. In the February 2023 decision on appeal, the RO adjudicated the merits of the issues without making an express finding regarding new and relevant evidence. The RO's treatment of these issues is consistent with a favorable finding that new and relevant evidence was received. As there is not clear and unmistakable error in this finding, the Board will not reconsider this question. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a).

The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those 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).

CUE

A CUE motion is a collateral attack on a final RO decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 5109A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). CUE is established when the following conditions are met. First, either (1) the correct facts in the record were not before the adjudicator, or (2)
specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those 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).

CUE

A CUE motion is a collateral attack on a final RO decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 5109A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a). CUE is established when the following conditions are met. First, either (1) the correct facts in the record were not before the adjudicator, or (2) the statutory or regulatory provisions in existence at the time were incorrectly applied. Second, the alleged error must be "undebatable," not merely "a disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated." Finally, the commission of the alleged error must have "manifestly changed the outcome" of the decision being attacked on the basis of CUE at the time that decision was rendered. Evans v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 180, 185 (2014). See also Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 242, 245 (1994); Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 310, 313-14 (1992).

"CUE is a very specific and rare kind of 'error'... of fact or law, that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error...[I]f it is not absolutely clear that a different result would have ensued," based upon the facts and law that were understood at the time of the decision, then any error that may have occurred in a final RO decision is not clear and unmistakable. Evans, 27 Vet. App. at 185-86 (quoting Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40, 43-44 (1993)).

1. Whether CUE exists in a January 16, 2019 rating decision denying service connection for IBS.

In the January 2019 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for IBS. The RO determined that this condition was neither incurred in nor caused by service. The RO found that the evidence did not show an event, disease or injury in service. The RO determined the service treatment records (STRs) did not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for this condition.

In a November 2022 statement, the Veteran's appointed representative argued that there was CUE in the January 2019 rating decision where it stated the evidence did not show any event, disease, or injury in service with STRs showing no complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for this condition. The representative argued that this statement is false as the STRs show numerous complaints for vomiting, stomach pain, and a diagnosis of IBS.

In this case, as a preliminary matter, the Board finds that the January 16, 2019 rating decision is final. The Veteran did not appeal the rating decision. Also, new and material evidence was not received within one year of the decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b). Although additional VA medical records were received, they did not pertain to the reason the RO denied the claim in the January 16, 2019 rating decision. Likewise, copies of service personnel records (SPRs) were received, but they did not show an event, disease or injury in service pertaining to IBS. Hence, the January 16, 2019 rating decision is subject to collateral attack via the instant CUE motion. See Lang v. Wilkie, 971 F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

The Board also finds that the Veteran has pled CUE with sufficient particularity. His argument is sufficient to inform the Board of his contentions. The Board also finds that the Veteran's CUE motion may proceed as to all issues because he has not previously filed a CUE motion for this issue. Accordingly, the matter is appropriate for consideration on the merits.

The Veteran's sole contention is that the RO erred in finding that the STRs did not show an event, disease or injury in service.

The Veteran is incorrect that the STRs showed a diagnosis of IBS. He did not identify the date(s) of such a diagnosis, and the Board was not able to identify any diagnosis of IBS during service. He is correct, however, that the STRS reflect treatment on numerous occasions for gastrointestinal complaints. He was treated in July 1990, October 1990, and August 1992 for symptoms diagnosed as gastroenteritis. In July 1993, the Veteran was treated for complaints of dizziness and cramps in lower abdomen for one day; the diagnosis was viral gastroenteritis. In May 1994, the Veteran sought acute medical care for complaints of nausea and vomiting for 12 hours after a boat ride; the assessment was viral gastroenteritis versus seasickness. In November 1994, the Veteran sought acute medical care for complaints of watery diarrhea after each meal for two days; the diagnosis was gastroenteritis. In February 1995, the Veteran was diagnosed with viral gastroenteritis with complaints of nausea and vomiting. In January 1996, the Veteran complained of lower stomach pains for two weeks, plus a knot for one week. He associated the pain with lifting heavy generators two to three weeks prior. The diagnosis was muscle strain. The RO did not discuss this evidence its rating decision.

Denying the very existence of the evidence that could possibly have changed the outcome of the underlying claim or denying the claim where there was no evidence to support its denial may be a basis for finding CUE. See Crippen v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 412, 422 (1996).

Here, the RO did not deny the very existence of this evidence or misstate the facts. To the contrary, its statement was factually accurate. The Veteran was treated for gastrointestinal complaints during service, but the RO's finding was that the STRs did not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of IBS. Despite the gastrointestinal complaints during service, the RO's finding was correct to the extent there was not treatment or diagnosis of IBS. The RO did not acknowledge the treatment for gastrointestinal during service. But, whether the complaints during service represented IBS was a question of fact. It was the prerogative of the factfinder in the January 16, 2019 rating decision to interpret the evidence and draw reasonable inferences from it. See Evans, 27 Vet. App. at 187. The RO's interpretation of the STRs at that time was not unreasonable as it is not clear and unmistakable that the complaints in service represented the initial manifestations of IBS. The diagnoses of gastroenteritis during service did not undebatably establish those complaints as symptoms of IBS. Thus, the RO did not have the incorrect facts before it where it found no event, disease, or injury during service.

Even if the RO erred to any extent in not discussing the complaints in the STRS, that error was not outcome determinative. The available information at that time did not reflect a confirmed diagnosis of IBS. The Veteran's December 2018 claim did not identify any treatment for the condition. He did not identify a diagnosis by a competent medical professional. Nor did he relate any current symptoms he believed were associated with IBS. His claim provided no context for why he believed he had IBS.

The Veteran's VA medical records were received. They included a November 2018 VA Psychiatry Medication Management note, which stated, "Has irritable bowel symptoms." It also included an "X" in the Review of Systems next to IBS. Despite this indication of IBS, the RO would have had to evaluate the credibility and probative weight of this medical record to determine if it represented a clinical diagnosis of IBS. Several factors bear on this question. First, no explanation was given for the "X." Absent some special indices of reliability arising from the manner in which a report is prepared, an "X" in a box on a form without any analysis or medical explanation provides no way of determining how the conclusion was reached. See Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 240-41 (2012). Second, the provider was not a medical doctor and was not a specialist in gastrointestinal issues. Thus, it
this indication of IBS, the RO would have had to evaluate the credibility and probative weight of this medical record to determine if it represented a clinical diagnosis of IBS. Several factors bear on this question. First, no explanation was given for the "X." Absent some special indices of reliability arising from the manner in which a report is prepared, an "X" in a box on a form without any analysis or medical explanation provides no way of determining how the conclusion was reached. See Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 240-41 (2012). Second, the provider was not a medical doctor and was not a specialist in gastrointestinal issues. Thus, it is not clear if this provider had to specialty necessary to diagnosis IBS. Third, this November 2018 VA Psychiatry Medication Management note was created two days after the Veteran filed his November 2018 VA claim for IBS. This raises a question as to the credibility of the Veteran's report of IBS symptoms. Overall, in context, it is not clear if this provider was diagnosing IBS or simply transcribing the Veteran's report of symptoms he believed represented IBS. This November 2018 VA medical record is open to interpretation, so it is not undebatable evidence establishing the IBS diagnosis.

The Veteran was undebatably a Persian Gulf War Veteran within the meaning of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 based on demonstrated service in Southwest Asia from January 1991 to April 1991, as shown on the DD 214. IBS at that time was recognized as a functional gastrointestinal disorder under 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2)(1)(B)(3). Nonetheless, absent a confirmed diagnosis of IBS, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 did not apply.

Because the evidence included gastrointestinal during service and some indication of an IBS diagnosis in November 2019, at that stage the next step would not necessarily have been a grant of benefits. Rather, the RO would have most reasonably arranged for a VA examination to establish if the Veteran had a confirmed diagnosis of IBS. The RO did not arrange for a VA examination. This, however, amounts to a breach of the duty to assist, which cannot form the basis of a CUE claim. See Evans, 27 Vet. App. at 195 (citing Cook v. Principi, 318 F.3d 1334, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).

Thus, overall, the Board finds that there was not CUE in the rating decision. The RO did not discuss the STRs showing complaints for gastrointestinal symptoms, but those STRs did not undebatably establish a diagnosis of IBS. Moreover, any error was not outcome determinative where the post service evidence at that time did not reflect a diagnosis of IBS.

For these reasons, the Board finds that it is not clear that the correct facts, as known at the time, were not before the VA adjudicator at the time of the January 16, 2019 rating decision, or that the statutory and regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied. Consequently, the Veteran's arguments cannot sustain a finding that the January 16, 2019 rating decision denying service connection for IBSD constitutes CUE. 38 U.S.C. § 5109A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.105. Accordingly, the motion to revise or reverse the decision is denied.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. A veteran seeking compensation under these provisions must establish three elements: "(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." Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

"Congress specifically limits entitlement to service-connected disease or injury where such cases have resulted in a disability. In the absence of a proof of present disability there can be no claim." Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement of a "current disability
) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service." Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

"Congress specifically limits entitlement to service-connected disease or injury where such cases have resulted in a disability. In the absence of a proof of present disability there can be no claim." Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The requirement of a "current disability" is satisfied if a disorder is diagnosed at the time a claim is filed or at any time during the pendency of the appeal; service connection may be awarded even though the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The standard is whether a disability exists at the time the claim was filed. See Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013).

While a diagnosed condition may result in a disability, the disability itself need not be diagnosed. Saunders886 F.3d at 1362. To establish the presence of a disability, a veteran will need to show that her condition reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity. Id. at 1367-68. The definition of "disability" in section 1110 includes any condition that results in "functional impairment of earning capacity," which is not limited to just those involving pain. See Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393, 398 (2020).

2. Service connection for hearing loss.

In a February 2021 statement, the Veteran wrote that his hearing loss has greatly affected his life. He described difficulty hearing everyday sounds, such as high-pitched voices and birds chirping. He also had trouble hearing sirens and safety equipment. He must also ask others to repeat themselves occasionally, especially when there is background noise. Finally, he wrote that other people often told him he talked too loudly.

For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.

The Board finds that the Veteran does not have hearing loss for VA purposes under § 3.385 and has not had such hearing loss at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. See Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. at 294; McClain, 21 Vet. App. at 321.

At a February 2021 VA examination, the examiner measured the Veteran's hearing acuity as follows:

HERTZ

500 1000 2000 3000 4000

RIGHT 20 25 25 25 10

LEFT 15 20 25 25 15

Speech recognition scores were 98 percent right ear and 96 percent left ear.

Because auditory thresholds at both of these examinations were not 40 decibels or greater in any of the frequencies, or 26 decibels or greater in at least three of the frequencies, and because the speech recognition scores were not less than 94 percent, a current hearing loss disability for VA purposes is not established. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.385.

The Veteran's VA medical records do not reflect any audiometric data.

The Veteran maintains that he has a hearing impairment impacting his daily life. However, he is not competent to diagnosis hearing loss for VA purposes under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. This question is medically complex because, per regulation, it requires diagnostic audiometric testing. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The file contains no indication that he has the competence to perform such testing or, even if he did, that he actually performed such testing.

Accordingly, the evidence is persuasively against the claim. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the
.

The Veteran's VA medical records do not reflect any audiometric data.

Accordingly, the evidence is persuasively against the claim. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable and service connection for hearing loss is not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

3. Service connection for hypertension.

Neither the Veteran nor his experienced counsel has offered any statement that the Board can liberally construe or read sympathetically to determine why he believes service connection for /hypertension is warranted.

The initial confirmation of a hypertension diagnosis requires two or more blood pressure readings on at least 3 different days. See Gill v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 386, 391 (2013).

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of hypertension and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. See Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. at 294.

The Veteran underwent a VA examination in November 2022. The VA examiner determined that there was no current diagnosis of hypertension. The examiner noted the Veteran's report that he had been told over time his blood pressure was elevated, but he was not currently taking any medication and there no impact on his ability to function.

The examiner's opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

There is no evidence controverting the VA examiner's conclusion. The extensive VA medical records reflect no diagnosis of hypertension. A July 2022 VA Psychiatric note states that his most recent blood pressure readings were "high normal." But, no diagnosis of hypertension was given.

The Veteran maintains that he has hypertension, but this condition is not within the competence of a lay person to diagnosis. It is medically complex as it requires specific diagnostic testing. And, the Veteran has not related a diagnosis of hypertension. He has only stated that he had been told his blood pressure was elevated over time. As such, his lay testimony does not establish a diagnosis of hypertension.

Accordingly, the evidence is persuasively against the claim. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable and service connection for hypertension is not warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

4. Service connection for PFB.

Again here, neither the Veteran nor his experienced counsel has offered any statement that the Board can liberally construe or read sympathetically to determine why he believes service connection for PFB is warranted.

In the rating decision on appeal, the RO favorably found that the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service. The RO cited STRs showing complaints of PFB. The Board finds that this favorable finding is binding as it is entirely consistent with the STRs showing treatment for symptoms of PFB, for which the Veteran was given a shaving profile.

The evidence after service does not reflect objective evidence confirming ongoing symptoms of PFB. However, the Veteran sought treatment with his VA primary care provider in February 2016 with a main complaint of facial hair ingrowing after he shaved. The provider noted the Veteran had issues with this in service and did not shave for long periods of time. The provider advised the Veteran that leaving facial hair longer would help. An August 2016 VA primary care medical record again notes a diagnosis of PFB, although with no complaints at that time.

The Veteran underwent a VA examination for this claim in December 2018. The VA examiner found there was no current diagnosis of PFB. The examiner found that the condition was last active in 1995 and resolved with no further need for medical interventions. On physical examination, the VA examiner was unable to see beneath the Veteran's cropped beard area, but observed no obvious lesions, and his nape
he shaved. The provider noted the Veteran had issues with this in service and did not shave for long periods of time. The provider advised the Veteran that leaving facial hair longer would help. An August 2016 VA primary care medical record again notes a diagnosis of PFB, although with no complaints at that time.

The Veteran underwent a VA examination for this claim in December 2018. The VA examiner found there was no current diagnosis of PFB. The examiner found that the condition was last active in 1995 and resolved with no further need for medical interventions. On physical examination, the VA examiner was unable to see beneath the Veteran's cropped beard area, but observed no obvious lesions, and his nape of neck was without rash or scars. The examiner went on to acknowledge the Veteran's subjective complaints of PFB, but found no objective evidence to support a condition.

In a December 2018 medical opinion, the VA examiner opined that that the claimed condition was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The VA examiner reasoned that symptoms were subjective only; objective examination was normal. As the VA examiner found no objective evidence of a chronic condition, a nexus was not established. The VA examiner cited the STRs showing a physical profile for PFB. The VA examiner also noted the Veteran's report he had not sought medical care for the condition since leaving service, but rather treated the facial area and neck with hot towels, and limited shaving. The Veteran denied being treated with medication either over-the-counter or prescription, and the VA examination at that time was noted areas to be free of rash common to PFB.

The Board finds that this VA examiner's opinion is not determinative. Generally, if a claimant's skin condition is subject to active and inactive stages, an examination should be conducted during the active stage. See Ardison v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 405, 408 (1994). Here, it is clear the December 2018 VA examination was not conducted during an active phase of the disease. The VA examiner did not address whether the Veteran's condition would become active if he were not following his provider's advice to keep the hair on his face long.

The Board finds that the evidence persuasively indicates that the Veteran's skin condition was inactive because he followed his provider's advice from February 2016 to allow his facial hair to grow longer. The implication of the evidence, to this end, is that the condition would become active if the Veteran started shaving. The Board finds no reason to doubt the Veteran's credibility that he managed symptoms of the condition by allowing the hair to grow longer and using a hot towel. This is entirely consistent with the VA examiner's findings on physical examination.

Overall, the evidence is persuasively in favor of the claim. Particularly when the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is resolved in the favor of the Veteran. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for hypertension is warranted.

RYAN T. KESSEL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board C. Bosely, 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