MALIGNANT NEOPLASMS OF THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEM

R. FEINBERG · 2026 · Case ID: A26034947

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran served in the United States Army from July 1987 to July 1990. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for colorectal cancer and ulcerative colitis, as well as the denial of increased disability ratings for tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, and allergic rhinitis. Regarding colorectal cancer, the Board found no evidence of a current diagnosis in the record, thus denying service connection. For ulcerative colitis, the Veteran claimed it was due to in-service toxin exposure, but the Board found the VA examiner's opinion, which stated it was less likely than not related to service due to unknown etiology, to be persuasive. The Veteran's own opinions on the matter were afforded no probative weight as the etiology is complex. For tinnitus, the Board denied an increased rating, stating the Veteran was already receiving the maximum schedular rating of 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 6260, and no basis existed for an extraschedular rating. For bilateral hearing loss, the Board applied the mechanical application of the rating schedule to the audiometric results from a November 2024 VA examination, which yielded a noncompensable rating. For allergic rhinitis, the Board denied a compensable rating, finding the evidence did not show the required obstruction levels or nasal polyps as per Diagnostic Code 6522, and that the condition was not rated by analogy.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of colorectal cancer found in the record.; Veteran failed to establish the first element of service connection.; Evidence persuasively weighs against the claim.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250725-569122

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26034947
Decision Date: 04/15/26 Archive Date: 04/15/26

DOCKET NO. 250725-569122
DATE: April 15, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for colorectal cancer is denied.

Service connection for ulcerative colitis is denied.

A disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus is denied.

A compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is denied.

A compensable disability rating for allergic rhinitis is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At no time during the pendency of his claim did the Veteran have a diagnosis of colorectal cancer, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of any such disability prior to the filing of such.

2. Ulcerative colitis is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, injury, or incident during service, to include exposure to toxins therein.

3. For the entire appeal period, the Veteran is in receipt of the maximum schedular rating for tinnitus, and the disability does not result in symptomatology that is not contemplated by the rating criteria.

4. For the entire period on appeal, the Veteran's bilateral hearing has been manifested by hearing acuity of no worse than Level IV in the left ear and no worse than Level II in the right.

5. For the entire appeal period, the Veteran's allergic rhinitis did not result in greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides, complete obstruction of the nasal passage on one side, or nasal polyps.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for colorectal cancer have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

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

3. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6260.

4. The criteria for a compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100.

5. The criteria for a compensable disability rating for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.31, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1987 to July 1990.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued in March and July 2025 by various Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Offices.

In his July 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the rating decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the decision was issued, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 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, 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

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38
.301, 20.801.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Pertinent to a claim for service connection, such a determination requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992). Under applicable regulation, the term "disability" means impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries and their residual conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; see also Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296 (1991); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the term "disability" as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability," and held that "pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability").

The requirement of a current disability is satisfied if a veteran has a disability at the time he or she files a service connection claim or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). However, when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the veteran's filing of a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of the diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.R.F. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021)(only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

Colorectal cancer

The Veteran asserts that he has colorectal cancer which he believes developed due to his military service, warranting service connection.

To establish service connection on a direct basis, a claimant must show the existence of a present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As noted above, the requirement for a current disability is satisfied if the disability is present at any point proximate to the claim, during the claim, or to the appeal period. See McClain, supra; Romanowsky, supra. If there is no evidence of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer, supra. Additionally, there must be a demonstration of symptoms proximate to, or since, the time the application is filed. Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As noted above, the requirement for a current disability is satisfied if the disability is present at any point proximate to the claim, during the claim, or to the appeal period. See McClain, supra; Romanowsky, supra. If there is no evidence of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer, supra. Additionally, there must be a demonstration of symptoms proximate to, or since, the time the application is filed. Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Here, a thorough review of the Veteran's treatment records shows no actual diagnosis of colorectal cancer at any relevant point during the appeal period. In July 2025, he underwent a VA examination in relation to his claim. At that time, no such disease was found. VA treatment records from the appeal period further lack any documentation of a colorectal cancer diagnosis. Therefore, service connection for the condition is not warranted, as the evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has a current disability.

The most fundamental requirement for any claim for service connection is that a veteran must first establish that he or she has the condition which is claimed. See Degmetich v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 208 (1995). In this case, there exists no evidence of any diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Therefore, the first element of service connection has not been met. Accordingly, there is no valid claim for entitlement to service connection. Brammer, supra. The Veteran is not competent to provide an actual medical diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires diagnostic medical testing and the interpretation thereof. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Thus, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasively against the claim for service connection for colorectal cancer, and the benefit of the doubt rule is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.R.F. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra; Lynch, supra. The claim is denied.

Ulcerative colitis

The Veteran asserts that his ulcerative colitis developed as a result of in-service exposure to toxins, warranting service connection. The Board acknowledges that VA has confirmed that the Veteran participated in toxic exposure risk activities (TERA) and was exposed to various toxins during his military service. His service treatment records are silent as to any symptoms of, treatment for, or diagnosis of the condition.

In July 2025, a VA clinician authored an opinion regarding the Veteran's condition and whether it was due to service, concluding that it was less likely than not. As rationale, the clinician explained that the causes of ulcerative colitis are not known, and the condition occurs in persons with immune system problems. Stress and certain foods can trigger symptoms, but do not cause the condition. He explained that there was no medical or scientific evidence available to support the finding of a relationship between the development of ulcerative colitis and participation in TERA. Without such evidence, no link could be found.

Based on this evidence, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. It affords significant probative weight to the July 2025 VA examination report, finding persuasive the VA examiner's opinion, as he clearly considered all of the pertinent evidence of record, to include the statements of the Veteran and relevant medical history, and provided a complete rationale, relying on and citing to the records reviewed. The examiner offered clear conclusions with supporting data, as well as reasoned medical explanations connecting the two, in his explanation. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008) (it is the factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion that contributes to the probative value of a medical opinion); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A]medical opinion... must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). Notably, there is no medical opinion to the contrary.

Although the Veteran believes that his ulcerative colitis is related to his military service, to include in-service exposure to toxins, the etiology of such a disorder is a complex medical matter requiring training and experience, which he does not possess. Specifically, the question of the etiology of ulcerative colitis involves a medical subject concerning an internal physical process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship in that such requires knowledge of the human body and the impact exposure to hazardous chemicals may have on such. Therefore, although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, as to the specific issues in this case-the etiology of colitis-falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007 (explaining that a veteran is competent to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg, but not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions). Thus, the Veteran's opinions as to the etiology of his disorder are afforded no probative weight.

Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's ulcerative colitis is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, injury, or incident during service, and thus service connection is not warranted. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the evidence is persuasively against the Veteran's claim and that doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra; Lynch, supra. The claim is denied.

Increased Disability Ratings

Disability ratings are determined by applying a schedule of ratings that is based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R., Part 4. Each disability must be viewed in relation to its history and the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition should be emphasized. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Examination reports are to be interpreted in light of the whole recorded history, and each disability must be considered from the point of view of the veteran working or seeking work. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. Where there is a question as to which of two disability evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation is to be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating is to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

Separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods based on the facts found, in a practice known as staged ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). Staged ratings are appropriate whenever the factual findings show distinct periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Id.

The basis of disability evaluation is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10.

Tinnitus

The Veteran seeks a higher disability rating for tinnitus. For the entire appeal period, his service-connected tinnitus was evaluated as 10 percent disabling pursuant to Diagnostic Code 6260.

Diagnostic Code 6260 was revised effective June 13, 2003, to codify existing VA practice of assigning a single 10 percent rating for recurrent tinnitus, whether the sound is perceived as being in one ear, both ears, or in the head. 38 C.F.R. § 4.187, Diagnostic Code 6260, Note (2). As the Veteran's service-connected tinnitus has been assigned the maximum schedular rating available pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.187, Diagnostic Code 6260, and there is no legal basis upon which to award separate schedular evaluations for tinnitus in each ear, there is no legal basis upon which to award a higher schedular rating. The law, in particular the regulation governing schedular evaluation of tinnitus, is dispositive of the claim. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994).

Further, as the Veteran has not asserted, and the evidence does not suggest, that such disability results in symptomatology that is not contemplated by the rating criteria, referral for consideration for an extraschedular rating is not warranted. 38
ular rating available pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.187, Diagnostic Code 6260, and there is no legal basis upon which to award separate schedular evaluations for tinnitus in each ear, there is no legal basis upon which to award a higher schedular rating. The law, in particular the regulation governing schedular evaluation of tinnitus, is dispositive of the claim. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994).

Further, as the Veteran has not asserted, and the evidence does not suggest, that such disability results in symptomatology that is not contemplated by the rating criteria, referral for consideration for an extraschedular rating is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321; Thun v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 111, 115-16 (2008); Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366 (2017) (either veteran must assert schedular rating is inadequate or evidence must present exceptional or unusual circumstances); Sowers v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 472, 478 (2016) ("[t]he rating schedule must be deemed inadequate before extraschedular consideration is warranted").

For these reasons, a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus is not warranted. The claim is denied.

Bilateral hearing loss

The Veteran has been assigned a noncompensable disability rating for his bilateral hearing loss. He asserts that his hearing warrants a higher rating.

Hearing loss is evaluated under 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86, Diagnostic Code 6100, Tables VI, VIA, and VII of VA's rating schedule. The Rating Schedule provides a table for rating purposes (Table VI) to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment, established by a state-licensed audiologist including a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC), and based upon a combination of the percent of speech discrimination and the pure tone threshold average which is the sum of the pure tone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Table VII is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. The horizontal row represents the ear having the poorer hearing and the vertical column represents the ear having the better hearing. Id.

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that the assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment are to be derived by the mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometry evaluations are rendered. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992).

An exceptional pattern of hearing impairment occurs when the pure tone threshold at each of the four specified frequencies (1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz) is 55 decibels or more. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (a). In that situation, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral. Further, when the average pure tone threshold is 30 decibels or less at 1000 Hertz, and 70 decibels or more at 2000 Hertz, the rating specialist will determine the Roman numeral designation for hearing impairment from either Table VI or Table VIA, whichever results in the higher numeral, and that numeral will then be elevated to the next higher numeral. 38 C.F.R. § 4.86 (b).

A review of the medical evidence of record does not show the Veteran to have bilateral hearing loss to a compensable degree at any time during the period on appeal. He underwent a VA audiological examination in November 2024, in connection with his claim. At that time, the Veteran described his hearing loss as manifested in an inability to hear people clearly. The examination results show that the Veteran's average puretone threshold (calculated by taking the average, in decibels, of the thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz) in the left ear was 52.50 decibels, and 23.75 in the right. Speech audiometry showed speech recognition ability of 80 percent in the left ear, and 90 in the right. Applying the criteria set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 and § 4.86 to these audiometric results yields a Roman numeral IV for the left ear, and a Roman number II for the right, based on Table VI. Per Table VII, a combination of IV and II equates to a noncomp
threshold (calculated by taking the average, in decibels, of the thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 hertz) in the left ear was 52.50 decibels, and 23.75 in the right. Speech audiometry showed speech recognition ability of 80 percent in the left ear, and 90 in the right. Applying the criteria set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 4.85 and § 4.86 to these audiometric results yields a Roman numeral IV for the left ear, and a Roman number II for the right, based on Table VI. Per Table VII, a combination of IV and II equates to a noncompensable disability rating.

In so finding, the Board has considered the Veteran's assertions that his hearing loss disability warrants a compensable rating. However, the Board is bound in its decisions by the VA regulations governing the rating of hearing loss. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.5, 20.101(a). Rating hearing loss requires the use of the Maryland CNC speech discrimination test and the pure tone threshold average determined by an audiometry test. Application of the schedule to the facts of this case shows that a compensable rating is not warranted. As observed above, this exercise is a mechanical one, with no interpretative leeway. See Lendenmann, supra. The Board must follow the law and regulations as written and apply them equally to all similarly-situated veterans. In making this determination, the Board considered the application of staged ratings but found no distinctive period where the Veteran's service-connected bilateral hearing loss met or nearly approximated the criteria for a compensable rating. A compensable rating is not warranted. The claim is denied.

Allergic rhinitis

The Veteran is currently in receipt of a noncompensable disability rating for rhinitis under Diagnostic Code 6522. Under that code, a 10 percent rating is assigned for allergic rhinitis without polyps, but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides, or complete obstruction on one side. The next higher rating of 30 percent requires evidence of nasal polyps. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97. In every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent rating for a Diagnostic Code, a zero percent rating shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31.

Upon review of the evidence of record, the Board finds a compensable rating for rhinitis is not warranted at any time during the appeal period. Here, the evidence does not show that such disability results in a 50 percent blockage of both nasal passages, a complete blockage of one nasal passage, or nasal polyps. Specifically, on VA examination in November 2024, the VA examiner found the Veteran did not have greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to rhinitis, complete obstruction on either side, nasal polyps, or a granulomatous condition. Further, the Veteran's rhinitis did not impact his ability to work. Similarly, the evidence of record for the appeal period fails to show that the Veteran experienced any such symptomology due to his service-connected condition.

Therefore, based on this evidence, the Board finds that for the entire appeal period the Veteran's rhinitis was not manifested by greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides, complete obstruction on one side, or nasal polyps, which are required for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 6522; thus, a compensable disability rating is not warranted.

The Board further finds that a higher or separate rating is not warranted under any other potentially applicable Diagnostic Code. See Copeland v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 333, 338 (2015)(when condition is specifically listed in rating schedule, it may not be rated by analogy); see also Suttmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 127, 134 (1993) (providing that "[a]n analogous rating... may be assigned only where the service-connected condition is 'unlisted.'"). Thus, as the Veteran's allergic rhinitis is specifically listed in the Rating Schedule under Diagnostic Code 6522, such disability may not be rated by analogy. For all of these reasons, a compensable initial rating is not warranted.

In reaching its conclusions herein, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that his allergic rhinitis is more severe than as reflected by the currently assigned disability rating. In this regard, the Board must consider the entire evidence of record when analyzing the criteria laid out in the rating schedule. While the Board recognizes that the Veteran is competent to
127, 134 (1993) (providing that "[a]n analogous rating... may be assigned only where the service-connected condition is 'unlisted.'"). Thus, as the Veteran's allergic rhinitis is specifically listed in the Rating Schedule under Diagnostic Code 6522, such disability may not be rated by analogy. For all of these reasons, a compensable initial rating is not warranted.

In reaching its conclusions herein, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that his allergic rhinitis is more severe than as reflected by the currently assigned disability rating. In this regard, the Board must consider the entire evidence of record when analyzing the criteria laid out in the rating schedule. While the Board recognizes that the Veteran is competent to describe his observable symptomatology, he is not competent at all times to provide an opinion regarding the severity of his symptomatology in accordance with the rating criteria. See Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007). The Board finds instead that the medical evidence in which professionals with medical expertise examined the Veteran, completed necessary testing, acknowledged his reported symptoms, and described the manifestations of his disability in light of the rating criteria is more persuasive than his own reports regarding the severity of the condition.

The Board has also considered whether staged ratings under Hart, supra, are appropriate for the Veteran's allergic rhinitis; however, the Board finds that his symptomatology was stable throughout the period on appeal. Thus, assigning staged ratings is not warranted.

In reaching its determination, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against an initial compensable rating, and thus the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra; Lynch, supra. The claim is denied.

R. FEINBERG

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Jeremy J. Olsen, 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