RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS

HARVEY P. ROBERTS · 2026 · Case ID: A26037380

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran served from December 1977 to December 1980. The Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for rheumatoid arthritis and sought to remand claims for service connection for residuals of a kidney removal and a prostate disability. The Board denied service connection for rheumatoid arthritis, finding that the Veteran did not have a diagnosed condition during the period under review or recent to the claim's filing. Service medical records and post-service treatment records did not indicate a diagnosis or treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. A VA examination in March 2025 found the Veteran did not have rheumatoid arthritis, as rheumatoid factor testing was normal, and the Veteran denied current symptoms. The Board concluded the weight of the evidence was against the claim, finding no reasonable doubt to resolve in the Veteran's favor. The claims for residuals of a kidney removal and a prostate disability were remanded. The Veteran contended these conditions were due to toxic chemical exposures, including PFAs and potentially TCE, PCE, vinyl chloride, benzene, explosive residues, and lead, at Fort Ord. The Board found the May 2024 VA examination incomplete as it did not address all potential toxic exposures. A remand was ordered for an updated TERA memorandum and new examinations to determine the etiology of the kidney and prostate disabilities, specifically addressing the Veteran's full exposure history.

Rationale

No diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis during period under review; Service medical records negative for diagnosis/treatment; VA examination found no rheumatoid arthritis

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

251030-615617

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037380
Decision Date: 04/21/26 Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 251030-615617
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a kidney removal is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence for the period under review persuasively weighed against finding that the Veteran had rheumatoid arthritis at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from December 1977 to December 1980.

This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from March 2025 decisions of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In the October 2025 Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, regarding the claims for service connection for residuals of a kidney removal and a prostate disability, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the AOJ decision on appeal issued on March 4, 2025. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence regarding those issues submitted after that decision cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.

Regarding the claim for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the AOJ decision on appeal issued on March 19, 2025. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence regarding those issues submitted after that decision cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801

Regarding the issue of service connection for rheumatoid arthritis, if the Veteran wants VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board cannot consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim, VA Form 20-0995, and submit or identify that evidence. 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

However, because the Board is remanding the claims for service connection for residuals of a kidney removal and a prostate disability, 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).

In the October 2025 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran indicated wanting to appeal the initial rating assigned for service-connected asthma in an August 2024 rating decision. The Board notes that a Veteran who wants to appeal an AOJ decision has a period of one year following the issuance of that decision to file a Notice of Disagreement. Otherwise, the decision becomes final. Because the Board did not file a Notice of Disagreement disagreeing with the initial rating assigned for asthma within one year of the issuance of the August 2024 rating decision, the issue of a higher initial rating for asthma is not on appeal before the Board.

1. Entitlement to service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is denied.

The Veteran asserts that the Veteran had a rheumatoid arthritis during the period under review that was related to toxic chemical exposures related to the ingestion of contaminated drinking water during service at Fort Ord.

The Board concludes that the Veteran did not have a diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis disability during the period under review, lasting from the March 2024 filing of the clam through the issuance of the March 19, 2025, AOJ decision on appeal, and did not have one recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007).

The service medical records did not contain any notation indicating diagnosis or treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. In a November 1980 service separation
chemical exposures related to the ingestion of contaminated drinking water during service at Fort Ord.

The service medical records did not contain any notation indicating diagnosis or treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. In a November 1980 service separation examination report, a service examiner indicated that the Veteran's back, neck, and joints were normal.

Post-service treatment records did not contain any notation indicating diagnosis or treatment for rheumatoid arthritis.

In a March 2025 VA examination report, the Veteran indicated that the rheumatoid arthritis disability began in 1977. However, when asked, the Veteran denied having any current symptoms of the disability. On examination, to include relevant laboratory testing, the VA examiner found that the Veteran did not have rheumatoid arthritis, because the Veteran's rheumatoid factor testing was normal.

Because the record did not contain any notation indicating that the Veteran had a diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis disability, the Board finds that the Veteran did not have a diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis disability for which service connection could be established during the period under review or recent to the filing of the claim. Congress has specifically limited service connection to those circumstances where a disease or injury results in a disability. In the absence of a disability that was present during the evidentiary period, service connection cannot be established. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992).

Accordingly, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis. The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and that there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran. Therefore, the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107.

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a kidney removal is remanded.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability is remanded.

The service personnel records indicate that the Veteran served at Fort Ord, California. The Veteran has contended that toxic substances in the drinking water at Fort Ord caused the Veteran to develop a kidney disability which necessitated the removal of the kidney and also resulted in a prostate disability. In May 2024 VA medical opinions, a VA examiner, having examined the Veteran, opined that any residuals of a kidney removal and prostate disability were not related to toxic substance exposures at Camp Ord, because, although the Veteran was exposed to polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAs) at that location, PFAs would not cause the claimed disabilities. However, in a February 2026 brief, the representative noted that, while the VA examiner had noted that PFAs were not noted to cause the Veteran's disabilities, it was known that other toxic substances, such as trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, benzene, explosive residues, and heavy metals, including lead, were present in the environment at Camp Ord, likely during the Veteran's period of service. Because the May 2024 VA examiner did no provide opinions regarding the Veteran's full exposure to toxic substances during service, the Board finds that the opinions are incomplete. The failure to provide a fully probative opinion is a pre-decisional error. Remand is necessary to provide an additional examination and updated TERA memorandum. The current TERA memorandum found exposure to "PFAs and other forever chemicals," without specifying what other chemicals.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Issue an updated TERA memorandum to consider the representatives statement that besides PFAs, other toxic substances, such as trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, benzene, explosive residues, and heavy metals, including lead, were present in the environment at Camp Ord, likely during the Veteran's period of service.

2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination or examinations to determine the etiology of any diagnosed residuals of a kidney removal and prostate disabilities, to include whether any kidney or prostate disabilities were caused by exposure to toxic substances during service at Fort Ord. The examiner must review the entire claims file, including a copy of this remand. In reviewing the file, the examiner should note the service medical records; the post-service treatment; the VA examination reports; the lay evidence; and any evidence submitted by the Veteran, to include the information regarding toxic substances at Fort Ord submitted in December 2024 and the private medical opinion submitted in April 2025. All indicated tests and studies should be performed, with all findings made available to the requesting examiner prior to the completion of the report, and all clinical findings should be reported in detail. A complete rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. The examiner must consider the lay statements provided by the Veteran regarding symptoms during and since service. The examiner is asked to provide responses to the following:

(a.) Diagnose all current disabilities related to the removal of the Veteran's kidney and any prostate disabilities shown during the pendency of the claims. If the examiner disagrees with any diagnoses provided during the pendency of the appeal, dating to March 2024, the examiner should provide clinical reasons for the disagreement.

(b.) Opine whether it is as likely as not that any diagnosed residuals of a kidney removal are related to the Veteran's period of active service or any incident of that period of service, to include exposure to PFAs, TCE, PCE, vinyl chloride, benzene, explosive residues, lead, or any other exposure confirmed by TERA memorandum.

(c.) If any of the Veteran's residuals of a kidney removal diagnosed during the pendency of the appeal is related to a malignant tumor or cardiovascular-renal disease, opine whether it is as likely as not that any diagnosed disability (1) began during the Veteran's period of active service from December 1977 to December 1980, (2) manifested within one year after the December 1980 separation from service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service.

(d.) Opine whether it is as likely as not that any prostate disability diagnosed during the pendency of the appeal is related to the Veteran's period of active service or any incident of that period of service, to include exposure to PFAs, TCE, PCE, vinyl chloride, benzene, explosive residues, lead, or any other exposure confirmed by TERA memorandum.

(e.) If any prostate disability diagnosed during the pendency of the appeal is related to a malignant tumor, opine whether it is as likely as not that any diagnosed disability (1) began during the Veteran's period of active service from December 1977 to December 1980, (2) manifested within one year after the December 1980 separation from service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service.

Harvey P. Roberts

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board T.M. Gillett, 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