Back to BVA DecisionsDENIEDService Branch AIR FORCE Special Benefit NO SPECIAL BENEFIT Docket No. 250902-580071
VARICOSE VEINS
DAVID H. ROBERTSON · 2026 · Case ID: A26033803
Summary
The veteran, who served in the United States Air Force from June 1966 to March 1970, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency. The veteran contended that these conditions were caused by herbicide exposure, specifically Agent Orange, during service in Vietnam, and also cited potential exposure as a jet engine mechanic. The Board acknowledged the veteran's service in Vietnam and his MOS as a jet engine mechanic, noting a presumption of exposure to herbicides and jet fuel. However, the Board found that the veteran's service treatment records did not document any complaints, findings, or treatment for varicose veins or chronic venous insufficiency during service. A post-service VA examination in May 2022 noted bilateral varicose veins. A February 2025 VA examination concluded that the veteran's bilateral varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency were less likely than not incurred in or caused by service, including any toxic exposure risk activities (TERAs). The examiner cited a lack of in-service or immediate post-service records of the condition, noted that varicose veins are typically due to age, genetics, and weight-bearing activities, and found no correlation with herbicide or jet engine mechanic exposures. The Board found this VA opinion to be significantly probative and noted no adequate contrary medical opinions. Lay testimony was considered but deemed insufficient to establish etiology. The Board denied service connection for both right and left lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency.
Rationale
No in-service complaints or treatment documented in STRs; VA examiner opined less likely than not related to service; Examiner found no correlation with herbicide or jet mechanic exposures
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26033803 Decision Date: 04/13/26 Archive Date: 04/13/26 DOCKET NO. 250902-580071 DATE: April 13, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency is denied. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's right lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency were not present during the Veteran's active service and is not shown to be otherwise etiologically related to such service. 2. The Veteran's left lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency were not present during the Veteran's active service and is not shown to be otherwise etiologically related to such service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for right lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for left lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the United States Air Force from June 1966 to March 1970. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2025 rating decision. In that decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) readjudicated the claims based on new and relevant evidence. The Board is bound by the favorable finding that new and relevant evidence sufficient to warrant readjudication was received. 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b)(4); 38 C.F.R. § 20.801(a). In September 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) and elected the hearing review option. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence before the AOJ at the time of May 2025 decision as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the Board in December 2025. A transcript of that hearing is of record in the claims file. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted and 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. Service Connection - Bilateral Varicose Veins with Chronic Venous Insufficiency The Veteran contends that he developed a circulatory disorder of his lower extremities as a result of his exposure to herbicide agents, specifically Agent Orange, while serving in the Republic of Vietnam. In a February 2023 Memorandum, the Veteran was found to have participated in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) during service. Specifically, he was qualified for a presumption of exposure to herbicides and was noted to have non-deployment toxic exposure as a jet engine mechanic. In a March 2025 Memorandum, the AOJ determined that the Veteran did not serve in a location where exposure to herbicides is conceded. Additionally, he was not found to have participated in any TERA during service. Of note, the Veteran's service personnel records document service in the Republic of Vietnam and his DD Form 214 denotes a military occupation specialty (MOS) as a jet engine mechanic. As such, he is presumed to have exposure to herbicides and exposure as a jet engine mechanic during his period of service. A review of the Veteran's service treatment reports (STRs) does not reveal any complaints, findings, or treatment for a circulatory disorder including varicose veins or chronic venous insufficiency. Post service VA outpatient treatment reports reveal an assessment of bilateral varicose veins in May 2022. At an October 2023 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency of the bilateral lower extremities records document service in the Republic of Vietnam and his DD Form 214 denotes a military occupation specialty (MOS) as a jet engine mechanic. As such, he is presumed to have exposure to herbicides and exposure as a jet engine mechanic during his period of service. A review of the Veteran's service treatment reports (STRs) does not reveal any complaints, findings, or treatment for a circulatory disorder including varicose veins or chronic venous insufficiency. Post service VA outpatient treatment reports reveal an assessment of bilateral varicose veins in May 2022. At an October 2023 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with varicose veins and chronic venous insufficiency of the bilateral lower extremities. The examiner proffered an etiology opinion; however, VA has previously found that the opinion is insufficient for adjudicative purposes. In February 2025, a VA examiner reviewed the claims file and opined that the Veteran's right and left lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. The examiner's rationale was that a review of the claims file revealed no record of chronic or recurrent varicose veins beginning in service or in the immediate post-separation period. Additionally, the examiner noted the Veteran's MOS of jet engine mechanic and considered that exposure but found that no permanent residual or chronic disability was shown by the service treatment reports or demonstrated by the evidence immediately following discharge from the service. The examiner also opined that it was less likely than not that the right and left lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency was caused by the indicated TERAs, after considering the total potential exposure through all applicable military deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic, combined effect of all TERAs of the Veteran. The examiner's rationale was that varicose veins are due to chronic venous insufficiency, a progressive loss of elasticity of the walls of the veins of the lower extremities causing back up of blood and subsequent edema, skin changes, and congestion. The examiner indicated that there is no correlation between these conditions and any exposures, including herbicide exposure and exposures as a jet engine mechanic. The examiner concluded that the conditions are due to age, genetic factors, weight bearing, weight, activities, etc. and there is no objective evidence that any exposure during service may have led to the development of varicose veins. The examiner noted that medical literature and job aids were reviewed and do not support any such correlation. In considering the evidence of record and the applicable laws and regulations, the Board concludes that the Veteran is not entitled to service connection for right and left lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency. The February 2025 VA examiner opined that the right and left lower varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency were less likely than not incurred in or caused by service, including any TERAs therein. The VA examiner considered the contentions of the Veteran, based the opinions on the relevant medical evidence and lay statements, and provided a rationale for the conclusions reached. Therefore, the Board finds the VA examiner's opinions significantly probative. Furthermore, there are no adequate medical opinions to the contrary. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The Board has also considered the lay evidence of record. The Veteran is competent to describe what he has personally observed or experienced. However, the ultimate questions of diagnoses and etiology in this case extend beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship and are beyond the competence of lay witnesses. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Board finds that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applicable as the evidence is not in approximate balance, and entitlement to service connection for right and left lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). David H. Robertson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Cryan, 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. in approximate balance, and entitlement to service connection for right and left lower extremity varicose veins with chronic venous insufficiency is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). David H. Robertson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Cryan, 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.