GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX DISEASE (GERD)

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from August 1968 to February 1970, including combat service in Vietnam, appeals the denial of an increased rating for chloracne and associated scarring, as well as the denial of an earlier effective date for tinnitus. The Board granted service connection for gastrointestinal disability, claimed as GERD, finding competent and credible lay evidence supported the claim despite the lack of in-service diagnosis. The Board also granted an increased 10 percent rating for hypertension, noting that while VA examination readings were borderline, the veteran's reported home readings and VA treatment records indicated systolic pressures predominantly in the 160s. For chloracne, the Board granted an increased 20 percent rating, finding the condition affected intertriginous areas. Additionally, the Board granted a 30 percent rating for disfiguring facial scars secondary to chloracne from August 2020 to June 2025, and a 20 percent rating for painful facial scars secondary to chloracne throughout the appeal period. Ratings for groin scars and a lumbar spine scar were denied as not meeting compensable criteria. The claim for an earlier effective date for tinnitus was denied, as the veteran's prior claim for hearing trouble was not appealed and the current claim was filed in June 2025.

Rationale

Competent and credible lay evidence of in-service symptoms; Continuity of symptomatology since service; Benefit of the doubt applied

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26034529
Decision Date: 04/14/26	Archive Date: 04/14/26

DOCKET NO. 251013-589923
DATE: April 14, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for gastrointestinal disability, claimed as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), is granted.

An increased 10 percent rating for hypertension is granted.

From August 6, 2020, to June 19, 2025, an increased 30 percent rating for disfiguring scars of the face secondary to chloracne is granted.

Since June 19, 2025, a rating in excess of 30 percent for disfiguring scars of the face secondary to chloracne is denied.

A separate 20 percent rating for painful scars of the face secondary to chloracne is granted.

From August 6, 2020, to June 19, 2025, an increased 20 percent rating for painful scars of the right groin secondary to chloracne is granted.

Since June 19, 2025, a rating in excess of 20 percent for painful scars of the right groin secondary to chloracne is denied.

A compensable rating for healing scars of the right groin secondary to chloracne is denied.

A compensable rating for a surgical scar of the lumbar spine is denied.

An increased 20 percent rating for chloracne is granted.

An effective date earlier than June 19, 2025, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's gastrointestinal disability, claimed as GERD, had its onset during his service.

2. The Veteran's hypertension was manifested by diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more. 

3. The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for chloracne has been pending since August 6, 2020.

4. Throughout the appeal period, since August 6, 2020, the Veteran's scars of the face secondary to chloracne are painful and result in three characteristics of disfigurement.

5. Throughout the appeal period, since August 6, 2020, the Veteran's scars of the right groin are painful and measure less than 144 square inches.

6. Throughout the appeal period, since August 6, 2020, the Veteran's surgical scar of the lumbar spine is not painful and measures less than 144 square inches.

7. The Veteran's chloracne is manifested by deep acne affecting the intertriginous and non- intertriginous areas.

8. The Veteran first filed a claim for tinnitus on June 19, 2025.  

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for gastrointestinal disability, claimed as GERD, are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

2. The criteria for an increased 10 percent rating for hypertension have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1-4.7, 4.21, 4.31, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7101.

3. From August 6, 2020, to June 19, 2025, the criteria for an increased 30 percent rating for disfiguring scars of the face secondary to chloracne have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7800.

4. Since June 19, 2025, the criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent for disfiguring scars of the face secondary to chloracne have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7800.

5. Throughout the appeal period, to include since August 6, 2020, the criteria for a separate 20 percent disability rating for painful scars of the face secondary to chloracne have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102,
figuring scars of the face secondary to chloracne have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7800.

5. Throughout the appeal period, to include since August 6, 2020, the criteria for a separate 20 percent disability rating for painful scars of the face secondary to chloracne have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7804.

6. From August 6, 2020, to June 19, 2025, an increased 20 percent rating for painful scars of the right groin secondary to chloracne have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7804.

7. Since June 19, 2025, the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for painful scars of the right groin secondary to chloracne have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7804.

8. Throughout the appeal period, to include since August 6, 2020, the criteria for a compensable rating for healing scars of the right groin secondary to chloracne have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7802.

9. Throughout the appeal period, to include since August 6, 2020, the criteria for a compensable rating for surgical scar of the lumbar spine secondary to chloracne have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7802.

10. The criteria for an increased 20 percent rating for chloracne have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, DC 7829.

11. The criteria for an effective date earlier than June 19, 2025, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from August 1968 to February 1970, including combat service in the Republic of Vietnam and the Veteran's decorations include the Combat Action Ribbon.  

On his October 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket.  

The Veteran testified at a Board hearing was held in December 2025 before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of notice of the July 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, 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).  

If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal 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
 on appeal, 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).  

If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal 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 denied 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. 

The Board interprets the Veteran's statements as reflecting an intent to have this matter reviewed in an expeditious manner, which the Board finds to be an implicit waiver of the Veteran's right to change Board dockets under Williams v. McDonough, 37?Vet. App.?305 (2024).

The Board notes that the Veteran also claimed entitlement to a total disability rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) on his VA Form 10182.  However, this benefit has already been awarded for the length of the appeal.

1. Service connection for GERD is granted.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

In order to establish entitlement to service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal connection between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Certain chronic diseases such as arthritis, will also be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Presumptive service connection for chronic diseases must be considered on three bases: chronicity during service, manifestations within one year of a Veteran's separation from service, and continuity of symptomatology since service.  Id.

To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must persuasively stand against a finding that the evidence is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal" to the evidence that supports the claim.  Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent.  Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that "[w]hether lay evidence is competent and sufficient in a particular case is a factual issue to be addressed by the Board").  

The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence.  Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001).  Indeed, in Jefferson v. Principi, 271 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), citing its decision in Madden, recognized that that Board had inherent fact-finding ability.  Id. at 1076
The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence.  Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001).  Indeed, in Jefferson v. Principi, 271 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), citing its decision in Madden, recognized that that Board had inherent fact-finding ability.  Id. at 1076; see also 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (West 2002). Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to weigh and assess the evidence.  Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992). 

As a finder of fact, when considering whether lay evidence is satisfactory, the Board may also properly consider internal inconsistency of the statements, facial plausibility, consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the Veteran, and the Veteran's demeanor when testifying at a hearing.  See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996).  

Here, all three elements of service connection are established by the competent and credible lay and medical evidence of record as to the diagnosed GERD.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The Board notes that service treatment records do not reflect a diagnosis of GERD.  However, the Veteran hs reported that he suffered from symptoms of reflux while he was in service and that those same symptoms continue presently.  

The Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms of reflux, such as burning in his throat, and therefore places probative weight on those symptom reports.  

A review of the post-service treatment records reflects reports of reflux, but does not reflect a diagnosis of GERD.  However, the Veteran reports that he takes TUMS regularly and treats these symptoms on his own, which, again, is considered to be a credible report given the nature of the disability.

Thus, the Board finds that there is sufficient evidence to find the presence of a disability, in that the Veteran suffers from acid reflux symptoms that necessitates the use of mediation for control.  See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

As a finder of fact, the Board finds that the evidence supports the Veteran's claim of service connection in this instance.  See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"); see also 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).  

Here, the Veteran has reported symptoms of GERD in service, since service, and currently.  Because the competent and credible evidence supports the claim, service connection for gastrointestinal disability, claimed as GERD, is warranted.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch, supra.

2. An increased 10 percent rating for hypertension is granted.

The Veteran is seeking a higher rating for his hypertension.

Hypertension is rated pursuant to 38?C.F.R. §?4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7101, for hypertensive vascular disease (hypertension and isolated systolic hypertension).  

Under DC 7101, a 10 percent rating is warranted for diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or; it is the minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control.  A 20
. § 5107(b); Lynch, supra.

2. An increased 10 percent rating for hypertension is granted.

The Veteran is seeking a higher rating for his hypertension.

Hypertension is rated pursuant to 38?C.F.R. §?4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7101, for hypertensive vascular disease (hypertension and isolated systolic hypertension).  

Under DC 7101, a 10 percent rating is warranted for diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or; it is the minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control.  A 20 percent rating is warranted for diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more, or systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more.

The term "predominant" is not defined in the rating criteria.  Merriam-Webster defines predominant to mean "being most frequent or common."  See, e.g., "predominant," Merriam-Webster.com Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predominant.

For the reasons that follow, the Veteran's hypertension has manifested in diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, corresponding to the criteria for a 10 percent rating under DC 7101.

The July 2025 VA examination showed systolic readings very close to the criteria necessary for a 10 percent rating.  It showed systolic readings of 154 and 156, and diastolic readings of 70 and 72.  When reviewing the VA treatment records, there are multiple indications of systolic readings in the 160s.  The Veteran has also reported at his hearing that his systolic readings are often in the 160s when tested at home.  Thus, the evidence, on the whole, shows that a higher 10 percent rating is warranted.

However, during the appeal period, the Veteran's hypertension did not manifest in diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more, or systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more.  

Accordingly, the evidence persuasively shows that the Veteran's hypertension does not more nearly approximate the criteria corresponding to a 20 percent rating.  A higher 20 percent rating is not warranted.

3. From August 6, 2020, to June 19, 2025, an increased 30 percent rating for disfiguring scars of the face secondary to chloracne is granted.

4. Since June 19, 2025, a rating in excess of 30 percent for disfiguring scars of the face secondary to chloracne is denied.

5. A separate 20 percent rating for painful scars of the face secondary to chloracne is granted.

6. From August 6, 2020, to June 19, 2025, an increased 20 percent rating for painful scars of the right groin secondary to chloracne is granted.

7. Since June 19, 2025, a rating in excess of 20 percent for painful scars of the right groin secondary to chloracne is denied.

8. A compensable rating for healing scars of the right groin secondary to chloracne is denied.

9. A compensable rating for a surgical scar of the lumbar spine is denied.

In this case, the claim for service connection for chloracne was granted, and the effective date of August 6, 2020, was assigned.  The appeal of the assigned rating for this claim has been continuously pursued since that date.  

In the July 2025 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ assigned ratings for associated scarring, with the effective date of June 19, 2025, which is the date of the VA examination showing such scarring.  The Veteran requested earlier effective dates for these ratings.  

Because these ratings were assigned due to a note in the rating code for chloracne, DC 7829, and the appeal for a higher rating for chloracne has been pending since August 6, 2020, the Board will consider this a staged rating claim, and will consider whether the ratings assigned should apply for the August 6, 2020, to June 19, 2025, time period.  

In so doing, the Board notes that, technically, the note for DC 7829 directs the rater to utilize this code, or (rather than and) the rating codes for scarring or disfigurement, whichever is the predominant disability.  However, since these ratings were assigned anyway, and this is technically a staged rating claim, the Board will still consider both scarring and chloracne, for which the Veteran is in receipt of ratings.

The Veteran contends that his scars are
 since August 6, 2020, the Board will consider this a staged rating claim, and will consider whether the ratings assigned should apply for the August 6, 2020, to June 19, 2025, time period.  

In so doing, the Board notes that, technically, the note for DC 7829 directs the rater to utilize this code, or (rather than and) the rating codes for scarring or disfigurement, whichever is the predominant disability.  However, since these ratings were assigned anyway, and this is technically a staged rating claim, the Board will still consider both scarring and chloracne, for which the Veteran is in receipt of ratings.

The Veteran contends that his scars are more severe than the current ratings.

The Veteran's scars of the face are rated under Diagnostic Code 7800, for burn scar(s) of the head, face, or neck; scar(s) of the head, face, or neck due to other causes; or other disfigurement of the head, face, or neck.

Under Diagnostic Code 7800, one characteristic of disfigurement warrants a 10 percent rating.  

A scar with visible or palpable tissue loss and either gross distortion or asymmetry of one feature or paired set of features (nose, chin, forehead, eyes (including eyelids), ears (auricles), cheeks, lips), or; with two or three characteristics of disfigurement warrants a 30 percent rating.  

A scar with visible or palpable tissue loss and either gross distortion or asymmetry of two features or paired sets of features (nose, chin, forehead, eyes (including eyelids), ears (auricles), cheeks, lips), or; with four or five characteristics of disfigurement warrants a 50 percent rating.  

A scar with visible or palpable tissue loss and either gross distortion of three or more features or paired sets of features (nose, chin, forehead, eyes (including eyelids), ears (auricles), cheeks, lips), or; with six or more characteristics of disfigurement warrants an 80 percent rating.  38 C.F.R. § 4.118.

Note 1 to Diagnostic Code 7800 list the eight characteristics of disfigurement: a scar 5 or more inches in length; a scar at least one-quarter inch wide at widest part; surface contour of scar elevated or depressed on palpation; scar adherent to underlying tissue; skin hypo- or hyper-pigmented in an area exceeding six square inches; skin texture abnormal in an area exceeding six square inches; underlying soft tissue missing in an area exceeding six square inches; and, skin indurated and inflexible in an area exceeding six square inches.  Id.  

The Veteran's scars of the right groin are rated under Diagnostic Code 7802, for burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage.  38 C.F.R. § 4.118.

Under these criteria, a scar with an area or areas of 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.) or greater warrants a 10 percent rating.  38 C.F.R. § 4.118.  Note 1 to Diagnostic Code 7802 instructed that a superficial scar was one not associated with underlying soft tissue damage.  Id.  

The Veteran's painful scars of the right groin are rated under DC 7804 for painful scars. 

Under Diagnostic Code 7804, one or two scars that are unstable or painful scars warrants a 10 percent rating.  Three or four scars that are unstable or painful scars warrants a 20 percent rating.  Five or more scars that are unstable or painful warrants a 30 percent rating.  38 C.F.R. § 4.118.  Note 1 to Diagnostic Code 7804 instructs that an unstable scar is one where, for any reason, there is frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar.  Id.  

In this case, the Board finds that the Veteran is entitled to a separate 20 percent rating for painful scars of the face secondary to chloracne.  At his December 2025 hearing, he reported that his face, especially around his eyes, would become swollen and painful from chloracne and its related scarring.  He reiterated that the scarring itself was painful.  Accordingly, the Board finds that a separate 20 percent rating under DC 7804 is warranted for three scars that are painful.

With regard to the Veteran's disfiguring scars of the face, the July 2025 VA examination showed three characteristics of disfigurement, that of surface contour depressed on palpation, hyperpigmentation, and induration and inflexibility.  The remaining characteristics of disfigurement were not shown
 20 percent rating for painful scars of the face secondary to chloracne.  At his December 2025 hearing, he reported that his face, especially around his eyes, would become swollen and painful from chloracne and its related scarring.  He reiterated that the scarring itself was painful.  Accordingly, the Board finds that a separate 20 percent rating under DC 7804 is warranted for three scars that are painful.

With regard to the Veteran's disfiguring scars of the face, the July 2025 VA examination showed three characteristics of disfigurement, that of surface contour depressed on palpation, hyperpigmentation, and induration and inflexibility.  The remaining characteristics of disfigurement were not shown.  These also were not shown on March 2025 VA examination, or otherwise in the treatment records.  Accordingly, a higher rating is not warranted.  However, this rating should date back to August 6, 2020, as there is no indication these scars began in 2025, but rather that they have been present throughout the appeal period.

With regard to the scars of the Veteran's right groin, he is already in receipt of a 20 percent rating for three painful scars.  This rating should date back to August 6, 2020, as there is no indication these scars began in 2025, but rather that they have been present and painful throughout the appeal period.  

Otherwise, the right groin scars do not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under DC 7801 or DC 7802, or under any other scar diagnostic code.

With regard to the Veteran's surgical lumbar spine scar, it is not entirely clear from the record how this scar relates to the Veteran's chloracne.  However, that aside, this scar has not been found to be painful and does not otherwise meet the criteria for a compensable rating under DC 7801 or DC 7802, or under any other scar diagnostic code.   

10. An increased 20 percent rating for chloracne is granted.

The Veteran's chloracne is rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7829, which applies specifically to chloracne.  

Under Diagnostic Code 7829, a 30 percent rating is warranted for deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) affecting 40 percent or more of the face and neck.  A 20 percent rating is warranted for deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) affecting the intertriginous areas (the axilla of the arm, the anogenital region, skin folds of the breasts, or between digits).  A 10 percent rating is warranted for deep acne (deep inflamed nodules and pus-filled cysts) affecting less than 40 percent of the face and neck, or deep ance affecting non-intertriginous areas of the body (other than the face and neck).  A 0 percent noncompensable rating is warranted for superficial acne (comedones, papules, pustules) of any extent.

Here, the Board finds that a higher 20 percent rating is warranted.  On July 2025 VA examination, the examiner found that the Veteran's chloracne was located on his face, back, groin, and perianal area.  The perianal area is considered to part of the intertriginous areas (the anogenital region), therefore, the Veteran meets the criteria for a higher 20 percent rating.  The Board finds that it was most likely that the Veteran's chloracne affected both the intertriginous and non-intertriginous areas throughout the appeal period.

A rating higher than 20 percent, however, is not warranted.  At no time has the Veteran's chloracne been shown to affect 40 percent or more of the face or neck.  

11. An effective date earlier than June 19, 2025, for the grant of service connection for tinnitus is denied.

The Board notes that on his VA 10182 and at his hearing, the Veteran was clear that he was not appealing the assigned rating for tinnitus.

Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an initial claim or supplemental claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later.  38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

In this case, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for tinnitus on June 19, 2025, at the earliest.  A review of the record does not reflect an earlier filled claim or intent to file a claim.  

The Veteran testified at his hearing that he went to a VA
 was clear that he was not appealing the assigned rating for tinnitus.

Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and award of pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an initial claim or supplemental claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later.  38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

In this case, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for tinnitus on June 19, 2025, at the earliest.  A review of the record does not reflect an earlier filled claim or intent to file a claim.  

The Veteran testified at his hearing that he went to a VA examination for this condition.  A review of the record shows that he filed a claim for trouble hearing in 1989 which was denied.  However, the Veteran did not appeal this decision, and it is therefore final.

Thus, while hearing trouble was previously considered, that claim ended when it was not appealed.  Absent evidence that there was an earlier filed claim for service connection for tinnitus other than June 19, 2025, the claim must be denied. 

 

STEVEN D. REISS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	R. Erdheim, 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.