ALLERGIC OR VASOMOTOR RHINITIS

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Navy from May 2011 until his honorable discharge in February 2014, appeals the denial of service connection for multiple conditions including allergic rhinitis, headaches, erectile dysfunction (secondary to headaches), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), back, neck, bilateral knee, bilateral shoulder, and traumatic brain injury (TBI). The Board denied these claims because the veteran failed to provide evidence of a current disability for any of these conditions. The few medical records in the file pertained to psychiatric symptoms, and no lay or medical evidence was submitted to demonstrate complaints, treatment, or diagnoses for the claimed conditions. The Board noted its heightened duty due to unavailable service treatment records but found the evidence did not weigh equally, thus the benefit of the doubt doctrine was not applicable. The case was remanded for bilateral hearing loss due to an inadequate VA examination, as the examiner's findings were inconsistent and lacked proper explanation. The psychiatric disorder claim was also remanded for a new examination, recharacterized as an acquired psychiatric disorder, given the veteran's diagnosis of major depressive disorder and intermittent explosive disorder, and his service in a hostile fire zone. The Board highlighted that any evidence not considered due to procedural limitations would be reviewed by the AOJ during the remand process.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of allergic rhinitis; No evidence of complaints, treatment, or diagnoses since service; Evidence persuasively weighs against claim

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26036904
Decision Date: 04/21/26	Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 211005-189855
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a headache condition is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to headaches, is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a back condition is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a neck condition is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder condition is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for a traumatic brain injury (TBI) is denied. 

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had allergic rhinitis at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a headache condition at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had erectile dysfunction at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had IBS at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

5. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a back condition at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

6. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a neck condition at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

7. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a left knee condition at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

8. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a right knee condition at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

9. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a left shoulder condition at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

10. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a right shoulder condition at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

11. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a TBI or related symptoms at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a headache condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to headaches, have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for IBS have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a back condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a neck condition have not been met. 
303.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for IBS have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a back condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a neck condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

7. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

8. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

9. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left shoulder condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

10. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

11. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a TBI have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from May 2011 until his honorable discharge in February 2014.  See DD-214.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2021 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  See May 2021 Rating Decision.  

Following the May 2021 rating decision denying the above claims, the Veteran timely appealed to the Board and sought to have a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ).  See October 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD).  The Board is honoring his choice and, accordingly, this decision has been written consistent with the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) framework.

Important for this decision, the Board's review of the record under the AMA is limited by statute and regulation.  The Board observes that on May 1, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request.  See May 2025 Hearing Withdrawal Correspondence.  

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2021 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b).  If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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
 during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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. 

However, because the Board is remanding the claims of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss and an acquired psychiatric disorder, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims.  38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

The Board observes that in correspondence dated May 2021, the AOJ informed the Veteran that his service treatment records (STR) were unavailable for review; when the Records Management Center was contacted, VA was told no records were found.  See May 2021 Correspondence.  In instances where a Veteran's service department records are unavailable, the Board is under a heightened obligation to explain its findings and to carefully consider whether the evidence is nearly equal, and if so, to resolve the matter in the claimant's favor.  See O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1?Vet. App.?365, 367 (1991); Pruitt v. Derwinski, 2?Vet. App.?83, 85 (1992).?

SERVICE CONNECTION

Service connection may be granted for a current disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  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).  The requirement that a current disability exist is satisfied if the claimant had a disability at the time the claim for VA disability compensation was filed or during the pendency of the claim.  McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Lay evidence is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology and "may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection."  Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994).  When a condition is capable of lay observation and may be diagnosed by its unique and readily identifiable features, the presence of the disorder is not a determination "medical in nature." 

Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis when a layperson (1) is competent to identify the medical condition; or, (2) is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis; or, (3) describes symptoms at the time which supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional.  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Although a lay person is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition, a lay person is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions.  See Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007).  Likewise, mere conclusory or generalized lay statements that a service event or illness caused a current disability are insufficient.  Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010).

A claimant bears the evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the benefit sought.  See Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (2009).  When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U
ert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007).  Likewise, mere conclusory or generalized lay statements that a service event or illness caused a current disability are insufficient.  Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010).

A claimant bears the evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the benefit sought.  See Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (2009).  When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).  The benefit of the doubt applies when the evidence for and against is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal," but does not apply when the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other.  Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits.  In evaluating a claim, the Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

1. Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis; headaches; erectile dysfunction, to include as secondary to headaches; IBS; a back condition; a neck condition; a bilateral knee condition; a bilateral shoulder condition; and TBI 

The Veteran filed his claim for the aforementioned issues in April 2021.  See April 2021 VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation.  At the time he filed his claim, he alleged injuries resulted in his current back condition, neck condition, bilateral shoulder condition, TBI, and headaches; he attributed his bilateral knee condition to wear and tear.  He further alleged that his IBS and rhinitis were caused by exposure to fumes and that his erectile dysfunction is secondary to his headache condition.  Id.  

The record does not contain any evidence suggesting that the Veteran has a current diagnosis for any of the aforementioned conditions.  Indeed, the few medical records contained within the file generally pertain to the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms.  See FMRS Health System Records, associated with the file in July 2025.  The Veteran has provided neither medical evidence nor lay statements that demonstrate complaints, treatment, or diagnoses of allergic rhinitis, headaches, erectile dysfunction, IBS, a back condition, a neck condition, a bilateral knee condition, a bilateral shoulder condition, or a TBI.  Moreover, the Veteran has not listed any medical providers to permit VA the opportunity to assist in developing his claim.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A. 

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  Absent proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim.  Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992).  As such, in the absence of a current disability, the analysis ends, and the claim of entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis, headaches, erectile dysfunction, IBS, a back condition, a neck condition, a bilateral knee condition, a bilateral shoulder condition, and TBI must be denied.  See Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Brammer v. Derwinski, supra.  

Additionally, as there is no lay or medical evidence of persistent/recurrent symptoms of disability since service or competent evidence suggesting an association with service, VA's duty to provide an examination or opinion has not been triggered.  McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that a conclusory generalized statement that a service illness caused his present medical problems was insufficient to trigger duty to provide medical examination as this theory would eliminate the carefully drafted statutory standards governing the provision of medical examinations and require the Secretary to provide such examinations as a matter of course in virtually every veteran's
.  

Additionally, as there is no lay or medical evidence of persistent/recurrent symptoms of disability since service or competent evidence suggesting an association with service, VA's duty to provide an examination or opinion has not been triggered.  McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); see also Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that a conclusory generalized statement that a service illness caused his present medical problems was insufficient to trigger duty to provide medical examination as this theory would eliminate the carefully drafted statutory standards governing the provision of medical examinations and require the Secretary to provide such examinations as a matter of course in virtually every veteran's disability case).

The Board further acknowledges its heightened duty under O'Hare v. Derwinski in light of the fact that the Veteran's STRs are unavailable for review.  1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991).  However, for the reasons outlined above, the Board has determined that the evidence of record is not nearly equal to permit entitlement to service connection for any of the above conditions.  As a result, the claim as to these issues must be denied. 

In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine.  However, as the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, that doctrine is not applicable.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Board's authority to remand is limited to correction of AOJ error to satisfy its duties under?38?U.S.C. §?5103A?if the error occurred prior to the AOJ decision on appeal, or if correction of any other error in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the claim.? 38?C.F.R. §?20.802(a). 

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded.

The Veteran filed his claim for bilateral hearing loss in April 2021.  See April 2021 VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation.  In connection with his claim, he underwent a VA examination in May 2021.  See May 2021 VA Hearing Loss and Tinnitus Examination.  However, the examiner stated that the test results were not valid for rating purposes, noting that the results are inconsistent with organic hearing loss.  Similarly, she noted that the use of the speech discrimination score was not appropriate for this veteran because of language difficulties, cognitive problems, inconsistent speech discrimination scores, etc. that made combined use of puretone average and speech discrimination scores inappropriate.  Id.

The examiner, unfortunately, did not explain why the results were inconsistent with organic hearing loss.  Moreover, there is no indication that the Veteran was re-instructed and given an additional opportunity to improve response reliability.  Although the examiner opined that there were language difficulties, cognitive problems, and inconsistent speech discrimination scores, it is unclear what caused these inconsistencies, and whether they are attributed to bilateral hearing loss, or whether the Veteran could be expected to test more accurately.  An examination report and medical opinion must contain reasoned medical explanation that connects clear conclusions to supporting data.  See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007).  

When the Veteran has been provided VA examination, VA has a duty to provide an adequate examination, which includes an adequate opinion.  Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007).  Here, remand to obtain another VA examination is necessary to remedy the AOJ's pre-decisional duty to assist error in relying on an inadequate medical examination.  Id.  The Veteran is reminded that the VA's duty to assist is not a one-way street.  Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991).  As such, his cooperation with the examiner is essential to achieve a valid examination to determine the nature of his claimed bilateral hearing loss disability.  A final attempt to obtain valid results is warranted.  

2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded.

Following the Veteran's hearing withdrawal, he submitted medical records that reflect that he has a current diagnosis of major depressive disorder and intermittent explosive disorder.  See FMRS Health System Records, associated with the file in July 2025.  In light of the multiple diagnoses, the Board has recharacterized his claim as one for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.  See, e.g
inski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991).  As such, his cooperation with the examiner is essential to achieve a valid examination to determine the nature of his claimed bilateral hearing loss disability.  A final attempt to obtain valid results is warranted.  

2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded.

Following the Veteran's hearing withdrawal, he submitted medical records that reflect that he has a current diagnosis of major depressive disorder and intermittent explosive disorder.  See FMRS Health System Records, associated with the file in July 2025.  In light of the multiple diagnoses, the Board has recharacterized his claim as one for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.  See, e.g., Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (indicating that a veteran's claim for service connection for psychiatric symptoms should not be limited to consideration of a specific diagnosis where the pleadings and evidence suggest a claim of broader scope).

The medical evidence submitted by the Veteran includes a treatment note dated February 2020 that states, "[Veteran] has had mood related symptoms since he was age 10.  He states that his symptoms have gotten worse over the past two years."  See FMRS Health System Records, associated with the file in July 2025.  The Board further observes that the Veteran served in hostile fire/imminent danger pay zone during service.  See Service Record.  In light of the foregoing and VA's heightened obligation under O'Hare, the Board finds that a medical examination is warranted as it may substantiate the Veteran's claim.  1?Vet. App. at 367; see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i).  

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine whether he currently has hearing loss for VA purposes pursuant to 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.385.  All tests and studies deemed appropriate by the examiner must be conducted.  After performing any required test, if necessary, and reviewing the entire record, the examiner should provide an opinion responding to the following:

a)	Whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or higher degree of probability) that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is related to service?

"	The examiner should note that the Veteran's exposure to military noise has been conceded.

"	The examiner must also consider the Veteran's statements regarding onset and continuity of symptomatology. Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007).

"	The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed.  If medical literature is relied upon in rendering this determination, the VA examiner should specifically cite each reference material utilized.

"	If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the Veteran, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation.

"	If the requested opinion cannot be rendered without resorting to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is caused by a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge, i.e., no one could respond given medical science and the known facts, or by a deficiency in the record or the examiner, i.e., additional facts are required, or the examiner does not have the needed knowledge or training.  Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 389 (2010).

2. The AOJ should seek to obtain an examination performed by a qualified medical specialist regarding the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder.  The claims file must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner.

a)	The examiner is asked to opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal) that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder occurred in or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran's military service.

b)	The examiner is also asked to opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal) that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was caused by, due to, or aggravated by his military service. 

The examiner should consider and comment on the significance (if any) of the FMRS Health Systems records.

"	The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean within the realm of medical possibility.? ?Rather, it means that the weight of the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is at least approximately balanced, or nearly equal, and therefore it is at least as medically sound to find in favor of the conclusion (e.g., etiology) as it is to find against the
 to opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e. likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal) that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was caused by, due to, or aggravated by his military service. 

The examiner should consider and comment on the significance (if any) of the FMRS Health Systems records.

"	The term "at least as likely as not" does not mean within the realm of medical possibility.? ?Rather, it means that the weight of the medical evidence both for and against a conclusion is at least approximately balanced, or nearly equal, and therefore it is at least as medically sound to find in favor of the conclusion (e.g., etiology) as it is to find against the conclusion.?? 

"	Any opinion expressed by the physician should be accompanied by a complete rationale. ?If medical literature is relied upon in rendering a determination, the physician should identify and specifically cite each reference material utilized. ?If the physician is unable to offer an opinion without resort to speculation, a thorough explanation as to why an opinion cannot be rendered should be provided.? 

"	The physician is advised that for the purpose of this opinion only, the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions.? 

"	The physician is also advised that noting that a condition did not manifest in service as the sole basis for forming a negative nexus opinion, without additional explanation, will not be adequate.? 

"	The examiner should not rely solely on silence in the medical records without explaining: (a) why the silence can be taken as proof that the symptom(s) did not occur, including why it would have normally been recorded if present, or (b) why the absence of medical records is medically significant.? 

3. THE AOJ MUST REVIEW THE CLAIMS FILE AND ENSURE THAT THE FOREGOING DEVELOPMENT ACTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN FULL.? 

a) IF ANY DEVELOPMENT IS INCOMPLETE, APPROPRIATE CORRECTIVE ACTION MUST BE IMPLEMENTED.? 

b) IF ANY REPORT DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE RESPONSES TO THE SPECIFIC OPINIONS REQUESTED, IT MUST BE RETURNED TO THE PROVIDING EXAMINER FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION. 

 

 

YVETTE R. WHITE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	V.B., 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.