FOOT IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from November 1978 to August 1980, appeals the denial of service connection for bilateral leg disabilities and the denial of an increased rating for his right foot condition. The veteran sought service connection for a right foot disability, including pain and functional limitation, based on an in-service injury where he stepped on a nail. He testified that this injury caused callouses and light duty status, and that he continues to experience pain and functional limitations. The Board found the veteran's testimony credible and highly probative, noting that a specific diagnosis is not required for service connection and that his descriptions satisfied the current disability element. Consequently, service connection for the right foot condition was granted. For the bilateral leg disabilities, the veteran testified that symptoms began in the early 2000s and were related to a back injury, not service. The Board found this testimony credible and weighing against the claim, as it indicated symptoms did not begin in service and were not linked to his sole service-connected disability, tinnitus. The Board applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine, finding the evidence weighed against the claim, and denied service connection for the leg disabilities.

Rationale

Veteran's testimony credible and probative; No adverse medical opinions; Descriptions satisfy current disability element

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039728
Decision Date: 04/28/26	Archive Date: 04/28/26

DOCKET NO. 210810-178333
DATE: April 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a right foot condition, to include pain and functional limitation, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disability is denied. 

Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability is denied. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's right foot disability, to include pain and functional limitation, is related to service. 

2. The Veteran's right leg disability did not have an onset in service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within a year of service, and is not otherwise related to service or a service-connected disability.

3. The Veteran's left leg disability did not have onset in service, did not manifest to a compensable degree within a year of service, and is not otherwise related to service or a service-connected disability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for a right foot condition, to include pain and functional limitation, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right leg disability have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served in the United States Army from November 1978 to August 1980.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in July 2021 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. 

In the August 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on March 25, 2025. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Service Connection

Generally, service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from an injury or disease caused or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). A grant for service connection for a disability requires: (1) a present disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship ("nexus") between the present disability and the in-service event, injury, or disease. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

A disability, with no causal relationship ("nexus") to an in-service event can be considered service-connected by being proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. 38
 a disability requires: (1) a present disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship ("nexus") between the present disability and the in-service event, injury, or disease. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

A disability, with no causal relationship ("nexus") to an in-service event can be considered service-connected by being proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 § C.F.R. §3.310(a)-(b). To establish secondary service connection there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) competent evidence establishing a link ("nexus") between the service-connected disability and the current disability.  See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). 

A non-service-connected disability proximally caused by a service-connected disability is considered part of the original condition. See 38 § C.F.R. §3.310(a). A disability which is aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury, is compensated to the degree of the increase of severity. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b); and see Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). 

Alternatively, to show a chronic disease in service, there is a required combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally, a showing of continuity of symptoms after service is required for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). 

1. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot condition, to include pain and functional limitation.

The Veteran seeks service connection for a right foot disability. See VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (August 2021). 

The Veteran reported that during training, he stepped on a nail, injuring his foot and resulting in callouses. After the injury, the Veteran was on light duty for a while. He reported that he continues to experience foot pain and functional limitations due to his injury. See Hearing Transcript (March 2025). Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). In this case, the Veteran is competent to relate that his pain began after stepping on a nail and has continued since. Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran's competent testimony credible and highly probative evidence weighing in favor of the claim. 

The Board notes that the AOJ denied the claim due to a lack of diagnoses. See Rating Decision - Narrative (July 2021). However, the current disability element for service connection is broad and a specific diagnosis is not necessarily required. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The current disability element also encompasses disabilities with intermittent symptoms or even disabilities that resolve. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007) (the presence of a disability at the time of filing of a claim or during its pendency warrants a finding that the current disability requirement has been met, even if the disability resolves prior to the Board's adjudication of the claim). Accordingly, the Veteran's descriptions of pain with functional limitations satisfies the current disability element as defined above.  

There are no opinions adverse to the claim. Thus, the probative evidence weighs in favor of the Veteran's claim. Accordingly, service connection for a right foot disability, to include pain and functional limitation, is warranted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disability. 

3. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability. 

The Veteran seeks service connection for a bilateral leg disability. See VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (August 2021). 

At the hearing, the Veteran testified that his leg pain did not begin until the early 2000s. He believed that his symptoms were related to issues with his back. See Hearing Transcript (March 2025). Again, lay evidence is competent
 are no opinions adverse to the claim. Thus, the probative evidence weighs in favor of the Veteran's claim. Accordingly, service connection for a right foot disability, to include pain and functional limitation, is warranted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a right leg disability. 

3. Entitlement to service connection for a left leg disability. 

The Veteran seeks service connection for a bilateral leg disability. See VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (August 2021). 

At the hearing, the Veteran testified that his leg pain did not begin until the early 2000s. He believed that his symptoms were related to issues with his back. See Hearing Transcript (March 2025). Again, lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). In this case, the Veteran testified that his leg symptoms did not begin until well after service and he attributed his disability, not to active service, but rather to a back injury. The Veteran is competent to relate that his symptoms began well after service and that he did not have chronic symptoms prior to experiencing symptoms in his back. The Board finds this testimony credible and highly probative evidence weighing substantially against the claim. 

The Veteran's tinnitus is connected to service. He does not have other service-connected disabilities. See Rating Decision - Codesheet (July 2021). Again, to establish secondary service connection there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) competent evidence establishing a link ("nexus") between the service-connected disability and the current disability.  See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). 

Here, the evidence indicates that the Veteran experiences pain and functional impairment in his legs, which could be construed as a current disability. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, there is no competent evidence which links the Veteran's only service-connected disability (tinnitus) with his current leg symptoms. Thus, the probative evidence weighs persuasively against an onset in service; that a right or left leg disability manifested to a compensable degree within a year of service; or, that these disabilities are otherwise related to a service-connected disability. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application and service connection for bilateral leg disability is not warranted. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

 

SHAUN S. SPERANZA

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Parnell, Michael C.

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.