SOFT TISSUE INJURY OF THE KNEE

PAUL SORISIO · 2026 · Case ID: A26039142

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from September 2005 to September 2013, appeals the denial of service connection for multiple conditions, including bilateral shin splints, joint pain/arthritis, sleep apnea, fatigue, a neck condition (cervical strain), acne, a lung condition (chronic cough, COPD, asthma), and traumatic brain injury (TBI). The Board found that no new and relevant evidence had been submitted since the prior rating decisions that would warrant readjudication for any of these claims. For the shin splints, the Board noted the absence of new evidence proving an in-service event or current disability. Regarding joint pain/arthritis, while the veteran submitted medical literature and VA treatment records referencing possible inflammatory arthritis, these were already of record and did not establish a current diagnosis. For sleep apnea and fatigue, the Board found no new evidence of a current diagnosis. For the neck condition, the veteran's statements about his MCMAP instructor duties were already of record and did not prove a current disability. For acne, lung conditions, and TBI, the Board found no new evidence establishing a current diagnosis or a link to service. The Board denied all claims, concluding that the criteria for readjudication were not met due to the lack of new and relevant evidence.

Rationale

No new and relevant evidence submitted; No proof of in-service event or current disability

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210112-441600

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039142
Decision Date: 04/27/26 Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 210112-441600
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for left leg shin splints is denied.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for right leg shin splints is denied.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for joint pain (claimed as arthritis), is denied.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for sleep apnea is denied.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome (fatigue) is denied.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for a neck condition, including cervical strain, is denied.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for acne is denied.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for a lung condition, including chronic cough, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and asthma, is denied.

Readjudication of the claim for service connection for traumatic brain injury (TBI) is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. New and relevant evidence has not been received since the prior May 2017 rating decision that denied service connection for left leg shin splints.

2. New and relevant evidence has not been received since the prior May 2017 rating decision that denied service connection for right leg shin splints.

3. New and relevant evidence has not been received since the prior February 2018 rating decision that denied service connection for joint pain (claimed as arthritis).

4. New and relevant evidence has not been received since the prior July 2018 rating decision that denied service connection for sleep apnea.

5. New and relevant evidence has not been received since the prior February 2018 rating decision that denied service connection for fatigue.

6. New and relevant evidence has not been received since the prior July 2018 rating decision that denied service connection for a neck condition.

7. New and relevant evidence has not been received since the prior May 2017 rating decision that denied service connection for acne.

8. New and relevant evidence has not been received since the prior July 2018 rating decision that denied service connection for lung condition, including chronic cough, COPD, and asthma.

9. New and relevant evidence has not been received since the prior September 2018 rating decision that denied service connection for TBI.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for left leg shin splints are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1)

2. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for right leg shin splints are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).

3. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for joint pain (claimed as arthritis) are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).

4. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for sleep apnea are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).

5. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for fatigue are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).

6. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for cervical strain are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).

7. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for acne are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).

8. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for lung condition, including chronic cough, COPD, and asthma, are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).

9. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for TBI are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R
readjudicating the claim for service connection for acne are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).

9. The criteria for readjudicating the claim for service connection for TBI are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from September 2005 to September 2013.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in December 2020 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In his January 12, 2021 VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A hearing before a Veterans Law Judge was scheduled for October 4, 2024. See 7/26/2024 BVA Hearing Scheduled Letter. Neither the Veteran nor his representative appeared at the scheduled hearing time. See 10/4/2024 VA Form 27-0820. The Veteran was subsequently contacted in March 2026 and was offered the opportunity for a rescheduled hearing. See 3/30/2026 VA Form 27-0820. The Veteran declined to have a new hearing and the Board will now proceed to the merits regarding the issues on appeal. Id.

Based upon the selection of the Hearing docket, the Board may consider the evidence of record as of December 9, 2020-the date of the rating decision on appeal-and evidence submitted at or within 90 days of the scheduled October 4, 2024 Board hearing. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302. If the Veteran submitted evidence that was added to the record after December 9, 2020 and before the scheduled date of the Board hearing scheduled on October 4, 2024, or more than 90 days following the scheduled date of the Board hearing, the Board did not consider it. If the Veteran wishes to have VA consider any evidence that was not considered, a supplemental claim should be submitted identifying such evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

The Board notes that in his January 12, 2021 notice of disagreement, the Veteran identified various additional issues, including, chest pain, bilateral shoulder pain, a bilateral wrist condition, a nose condition, multiple sclerosis, and sleep disturbance. 1/12/2021 VA Form 10182. The Board finds that no rating decisions adjudicating these claims were issued in the one-year period prior to the filing of the Veteran's January 2021 notice of disagreement. Therefore, the Board finds that these issues are not properly before the Board and are not addressed in the present decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

New and Relevant Evidence

VA will readjudicate a claim if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). "New evidence" is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). "Relevant evidence" is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue. Id.

1. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for left leg shin splints.

2. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for right leg shin splints.

The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for bilateral leg shin splints, which he contends are the result of his military service. See 1/12/2021 VA Form 10182. A May 2017 rating decision denied service connection for bilateral leg shin splints, finding that the Veteran's condition did not occur in and was not caused by service. 5/9/2017 Rating Decision, p. 11.

The December 2020 rating decision on appeal found that new and relevant evidence had not been secured because there was nothing new added to the record that proved or disproved a matter at issue. 12/9/2020 Rating Decision, pp. 4, 7. Since the time of the May 2017 rating decision, there has been no new medical or lay evidence secured in support of the Veteran's
service. See 1/12/2021 VA Form 10182. A May 2017 rating decision denied service connection for bilateral leg shin splints, finding that the Veteran's condition did not occur in and was not caused by service. 5/9/2017 Rating Decision, p. 11.

After review of the record, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been secured to readjudicate the claim. There has been no additional evidence secured to indicate the occurrence of an in-service event or disability and no additional evidence to indicate the presence of a current disability. Because there was no new and relevant evidence secured in support of the claim after the May 2017 rating decision, the evidence weighs persuasively against the Veteran's claim and the appeal is denied.

3. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for joint pain (claimed as arthritis).

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for joint pain and arthritis, in relation to his military service. 1/12/2021 VA Form 10182. The Board notes that the RO's December 2020 rating decision recharacterized the Veteran's claim as service connection for fibromyalgia (joint pains and arthritis). 12/9/2020 Rating Decision, p. 4.

The RO's prior February 2018 rating decision denied service connection on the basis that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis. 2/14/2018 Rating Decision, p. 5. The December 2020 rating decision on appeal found that new and relevant evidence had not been secured because any new evidence secured did not prove or disprove a material matter at issue. 12/9/2020 Rating Decision, p. 4.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted a variety of references to medical literature and studies indicating a high correlation between the prevalence of arthritis in military veterans. 9/23/2020 VA Form 21-4138, p. 2. The Board further notes a May 2018 VA examination in which the Veteran was found to not have any arthritis in his shoulders. 5/25/2018 C&P Exam, p. 2. The Board acknowledges duplicate VA treatment records associated with the record in June 2019 indicating a possible diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis, but notes that these medical records were before the RO at the time of the February 2018 rating decision. 6/26/2019 CAPRI, p. 28; 7/10/2017 CAPRI, p. 5.

After review of the probative evidence of record, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been secured to readjudicate the claim. Although the Veteran submitted medical literature showing an increased prevalence of arthritis in military veteran populations, there was no evidence secured or associated with the record that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue. Specifically, there was no evidence added to the record indicating that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a current disability. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence warranting readjudication was not secured and the appeal as to this issue is denied.

4. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for sleep apnea.

The Veteran contends that his sleep apnea is the result of his active military service. 1/12/2021 VA Form 10182. The RO previously denied the Veteran's claim in a July 2018 rating decision, indicating that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of sleep apnea. 7/2/2018 Rating Decision, p. 10.

In its December 2020 rating decision, the RO found that new and relevant evidence had not been secured to readjudicate the claim. 12/9/2020 Rating Decision, p. 8.

After review of the record, the Board finds that there was no relevant evidence of a current disability secured following the July 2018 rating decision and that, therefore, there had been no new and relevant evidence regarding the issue at the time the RO issued the December 2020 rating decision that denied the claim. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been secured and the claim is denied.

5. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for fatigue

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for fatigue. 9/23/2020 Correspondence. The RO's February 2018
to readjudicate the claim. 12/9/2020 Rating Decision, p. 8.

5. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for fatigue

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for fatigue. 9/23/2020 Correspondence. The RO's February 2018 rating decision denied service connection for fatigue based on the lack of current diagnosis for the claimed condition. 2/14/2018 Rating Decision, p. 5.

In its December 2020 rating decision, the RO found that new and relevant evidence had not been secured in relation to the claim and continued the denial based upon the lack of a current diagnosis and the lack of evidence showing an in-service injury or disease. 12/9/2020 Rating Decision, p. 6. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted correspondence in September 2020 outlining diagnostic criteria for chronic fatigue syndrome. 9/23/2020 Correspondence. In addition, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's statements indicating that he made reports of fatigue in his mental health treatment notes. Id. However, the Board further acknowledges that these reports were of record at the time of the February 2018 denial of the claim and do not, therefore, constitute new evidence. Id.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran underwent a VA examination in relation to his PTSD in June 2020 in which he reported fatigue. 6/10/2020 C&P Exam. The VA examiner did not make a separate diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome and attributed the Veteran's chronic sleep impairment to his PTSD and persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress. Id. at 2, 6.

After review of the record, the Board finds that there was no new and relevant evidence tending to prove or disprove a matter at issue was secured or associated with the record between the February 2018 denial and issuance of the rating decision presently on appeal. Importantly, there was no new and relevant evidence secured indicating that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a current disability. Accordingly, readjudication is not warranted and the appeal is denied.

6. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for a neck condition, including cervical strain.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a neck condition that resulted from his responsibilities as a Marine Corps Martial Arts Program (MCMAP) instructor. 9/23/2020 Correspondence.

A July 2018 rating decision denied the Veteran's claim based upon the lack of a current diagnosed disability. 7/2/2018 Rating Decision, pp. 9-10. The RO's December 2020 rating decision found that new and relevant evidence had not been secured in support of his neck claim.

The Veteran submitted a September 2020 statement indicating that his neck condition is related to his duties as an MCMAP instructor. 9/23/2020 Correspondence. However, there is no additional new and relevant evidence of record indicating that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a disability. Moreover, the Board finds that there is no new and relevant evidence indicating that the Veteran's claimed neck condition has resulted in functional impairment of earning capacity. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that "disability" refers to functional impairment of earning capacity).

After review of the competent record, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been secured to readjudicate ethe claim. Although the Board acknowledges the Veteran's statements regarding his in-service responsibilities as a martial arts instructor, the Veteran's statements do not tend to prove or disprove a matter at issue, as they do not prove that the Veteran has a current disability. Moreover, the fact that the Veteran served as a martial arts instructor as a component of his military occupational specialty (MOS) was already of record. See 5/4/2016 DD Form 214.

Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been secured and the Veteran's appeal is denied.

7. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for acne is denied.

The Veteran contends that he suffers from acne as a result of his military service. 12/9/2021 VA Form 10182. A May 2017 rating decision denied service connection for acne on the basis that the Veteran does not have a current disability, that there was no in-service event or
a current disability. Moreover, the fact that the Veteran served as a martial arts instructor as a component of his military occupational specialty (MOS) was already of record. See 5/4/2016 DD Form 214.

Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been secured and the Veteran's appeal is denied.

7. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for acne is denied.

The Veteran contends that he suffers from acne as a result of his military service. 12/9/2021 VA Form 10182. A May 2017 rating decision denied service connection for acne on the basis that the Veteran does not have a current disability, that there was no in-service event or injury, and that his claimed condition was not caused by a service-connected condition.

The RO's December 2020 rating decision found that new and relevant evidence had not been secured because nothing added to the record following the May 2017 rating decision either proved or disproved a matter at issue. See 5/9/2017 Rating Decision, p. 10.

After review of the competent evidence since the time of the May 2017 rating decision, there has been no new and relevant evidence secured or associated with the record indicating that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of acne or that his claimed condition is related to an in-service event or injury. Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been secured and the appeal is denied.

8. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for a lung condition, including chronic cough, COPD, and asthma.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a lung condition. 1/12/2021 VA Form 10182.

A July 2018 rating decision denied the Veteran's claim for service connection because the evidence of record did not establish any in-service events, disease or diagnosis of a condition. 7/2/2018 Rating Decision, p. 5. The RO's December 2020 rating decision denied the Veteran's claim because there was no evidence that the Veteran has a current diagnosed disability and there was no link between the Veteran's condition and his military service. 12/9/2020 Rating Decision, p. 7.

Since the July 2018 rating decision, no additional relevant records were secured or associated with the record. The Board notes a statement from June 2020 indicating his belief that his cough condition is related to his exposure to burn pits. 6/2/2020 VA Form 21-526EZ. However, the Veteran had a prior VA examination addressing these contentions which resulted in no medical diagnoses of any respiratory condition, including chronic cough or asthma. 9/8/2016 C&P Exam.

After review of the probative record, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been secured to readjudicate the claim because there has been no additional evidence tending to prove or disprove any matter related to the element requiring the showing of a current disability. To the extent the Veteran has made credible lay statements regarding his symptomatology, the Board finds the medical examination of record more probative.

Accordingly, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has not been secured and the appeal is denied.

9. Readjudication of the claim for service connection for TBI.

10. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for TBI incurred in approximately 2007 while on deployment. 9/23/2020 VA Form 21-4138. A September 2018 rating decision denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for TBI. 9/21/2018 Rating Decision, p. 1.

The Board notes that the Veteran submitted a September 2020 statement indicating that his injury occurred after his patrol vehicle struck an IED. 9/23/2020 VA Form 21-4138. The Board notes that these facts were previously of record, as having been recorded during a VA examination conducted in July 2015. See 7/8/2015 C&P Exam. The Board further notes that no new and relevant VA treatment records were associated with the record following the September 2018 rating decision.

After review of the probative record, the Board finds that no new and relevant evidence was secured or associated with the record to warrant readjudication of the claim. Although the Board is sympathetic to the Veteran's September 2020 statement describing the events during his 2007 deployment, as discussed above, the Board notes that these facts were previously of record and do not tend to prove or disprove any matter at issue. Accordingly, the Board finds that no new and relevant evidence was secured and the appeal is denied.

Paul Sorisio

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board

Analyze in VA Law Explorer