FLATFOOT ACQUIRED

HARVEY P. ROBERTS · 2026 · Case ID: A26039962

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from July 2015 to July 2019, appeals the denial of service connection for right and left foot pes planus, sleep apnea, and narcolepsy. The veteran's service medical records from August 2015 indicated normal foot arches and no foot trouble, although a September 2017 report noted right foot pain after a ladder fall, with negative X-rays and no further treatment. Post-service records did not show diagnoses or treatment for pes planus. A May 2021 VA examination diagnosed plantar fasciitis, not pes planus, and the examiner opined the foot disability was not service-related. The veteran testified at a March 2025 hearing about an undocumented fall on the USS Kearsarge, but this testimony conflicted with service records placing him in submarine school at the time. The Board found the contemporaneous service records and post-service denials of foot trouble more probative than the veteran's later testimony. For sleep apnea and narcolepsy, service records showed no diagnosis or trouble reported. Post-service records also lacked these diagnoses, despite the veteran reporting sleep issues in March 2021. A May 2021 pulmonary test did not diagnose these conditions. The Board found the veteran's lay assertions regarding these sleep disorders lacked probative value as they were not supported by medical evidence or diagnosis. Service connection for all claimed conditions was denied.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of pes planus; Service medical records showed normal arches and no foot trouble; Post-service records lacked diagnosis or treatment for pes planus; VA examiner opined foot disability not service-related

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210625-168332

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039962
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 210625-168332
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

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

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

Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for narcolepsy is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against finding a right foot disability had its onset in or is otherwise related to service.

2. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against finding a left foot disability had its onset in or is otherwise related to service.

3. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sleep apnea.

4. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of narcolepsy.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for narcolepsy have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from July 2015 to July 2019.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from May 2021 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). On June 25, 2021, the Veteran filed a timely appeal of that decision using VA Form 10182, Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) and elected to have a Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 19.2.

On March 28, 2025, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file.

Because of the Veteran's election of review through the Board hearing docket, the Board may only consider evidence submitted at the time of the rating decision on appeal, additional testimony during the Board hearing, and evidence submitted within 90 days after the Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

Remand is permitted only to cure pre-decisional errors in VA's duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating the claim, and to correct errors in VA's duty to satisfy a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the Veteran's claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802

Service Connection

Service connection may be established for a disability caused by disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to establish service connection for a claimed disability, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) evidence, generally medical, of a causal relationship between the disease or injury in service and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999).

Service connection may also be established for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Cosman v. Principi, 3 Vet. App.
there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) evidence, generally medical, of a causal relationship between the disease or injury in service and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999).

Service connection may also be established for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Cosman v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 503 (1992). The disease entity for which service connection is sought must be chronic rather than acute and transitory in nature. For the showing of chronic disease in service, a combination of manifestations must exist sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word chronic. Furthermore, service incurrence will be presumed for certain chronic diseases if manifest to a compensable degree within the year after active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309.

Disability which is proximately due to, the result of, caused by, or aggravated by service-connected disability will be service-connected. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

1. Entitlement to service connection for right foot pes planus

2. Entitlement to service connection for left foot pes planus

The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for right and left foot pes planus.

The service medical records show that in an August 2015 Report of Medical Examination, the arches of the Veteran's feet and a clinical examination of the Veteran's lower extremities were normal. In an August 2015 Report of Medical History, the Veteran denied foot trouble. In January 2016, a doctor noted that the Veteran presented to Undersea Medicine for treatment of an ingrown toenail in the right great toe. The doctor noted that the Veteran denied any other concerns at that time. A July 2017 Periodic Health Assessment form shows that the Veteran reported that he did not have any pain or other health concerns. A September 2017 report shows that the Veteran reported right foot and ankle pain after a fall from a ladder. X-rays were negative and the Veteran was placed on 24 hours of bed rest. Service medical records dated from February 201 to June 2019 show that while the Veteran was in submarine school, he sustained a right knee injury which was not contemporaneously documented. In a May 2019 Report of Medical History, the Veteran denied foot trouble. In a June 2019 Report of Medical Examination, an examiner noted tinea pedis. The examiner noted that the Veteran's arches were normal, the feet were asymptomatic, and a clinical examination of the lower extremities was normal.

The post-service medical records do not contain reports, treatments, or diagnoses of pes planus. An August 2020 VA general examination did not diagnose any foot disabilities. In December 2020, the Veteran reported that he worked as a carpenter. In January 2021, the Veteran reported bilateral foot pain caused by walking. The Veteran reported that he had tried inserts and that his work boots were more comfortable than regular shoes. In February 2021, the Veteran reported that he had occasional bilateral foot pain at the end of the day. The Veteran denied having any foot pain at the time of the February 2021 examination.

A May 2021 VA examination diagnosed plantar fasciitis, not pes planus (flat feet). The Veteran reported the onset of foot pain in 2012. He reported that he fell from a ladder while in service. The VA examiner stated that the service medical records did not support a finding that the Veteran's foot disability was related to service, to include right foot pain caused by a fall from a ladder.

In May 2022, the Veteran reported that his employment was laborious requiring heavy and vigorous physical activity.

An October 2024 VA skin examination diagnosed bilateral tinea pedis (athlete's foot). A December 2024 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's tinea pedis was at least as likely as not related to service.

In May 2022, the Veteran reported that his employment was laborious requiring heavy and vigorous physical activity.

At a March 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that while aboard the USS Kearsarge, he spent the night in an intensive care unit due to a fall. He testified that he was reprimanded and kicked off of watch duty because he spent the night in the medical facility instead of being at work. The Veteran testified that the record of the fall was not in the service medical records. The Veteran testified that his job was very critical and he was not allowed to seek treatment unless it was absolutely medically necessary. He testified that if he had headaches or other small ailments, he was not sent for medical treatment.

The Board finds that entitlement to service connection for pes planus or any other right or left foot disability is not warranted. The service medical records show that the Veteran did not have pes planus during or at separation from service. Moreover, the evidence does not show that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of pes planus. The Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, the Veteran has not been shown to possess the medical training and expertise necessary to address etiology in the present case. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran's lay assertions regarding any diagnosis of pes planus is not competent, and the Board assigns such assertions no probative or persuasive weight or value. Greater probative value is assigned to the medical evidence of record.

The probative value of medical evidence is based on the physician's knowledge and skill in analyzing the data, and the medical conclusions reached; as is true of any evidence, the credibility and weight to be attached to medical opinions are within the province of the Board. Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467 (1993). No medical professional, to include the Veteran's own doctors noted that the Veteran had a diagnosis of pes planus. VA examiners specifically noted that the Veteran did not have pes planus and there are no medical opinions to the contrary.

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim, to include entitlement to service connection on a direct, presumptive, or secondary basis. Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992).

Accordingly, as there is no competent evidence of a current diagnosis of pes planus, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran.

The Board acknowledges that VA foot and skin examinations diagnosed tinea pedis and plantar fasciitis. Entitlement to service connection for tinea pedis was established in a January 2025 rating decision; and the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for plantar fasciitis is not warranted because the disability did not have its onset in and is not otherwise related to service.

The service medical records do not contain reports, treatment, or a diagnosis of plantar fasciitis. The Veteran did not report right or left foot pain during the January 2016 treatment of an ingrown toenail. Although, the Veteran reported right foot pain in September 2017, there were no further reports of or treatment for foot pain in service. Moreover, the Veteran specifically denied foot trouble in the May 2019 Report of Medical History. The Veteran first reported foot pain in January 2021, nearly two years after separation from service. Notably, the Veteran did not report that foot pain was related to service. The Board finds that it is reasonable to expect that if the Veteran had foot pain
The service medical records do not contain reports, treatment, or a diagnosis of plantar fasciitis. The Veteran did not report right or left foot pain during the January 2016 treatment of an ingrown toenail. Although, the Veteran reported right foot pain in September 2017, there were no further reports of or treatment for foot pain in service. Moreover, the Veteran specifically denied foot trouble in the May 2019 Report of Medical History. The Veteran first reported foot pain in January 2021, nearly two years after separation from service. Notably, the Veteran did not report that foot pain was related to service. The Board finds that it is reasonable to expect that if the Veteran had foot pain which he believed was related to service, he would have reported it to his doctors.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's March 2025 Board hearing testimony regarding an undocumented foot injury caused by a fall while aboard the USS Kearsarge. However, the testimony conflicts with the evidence of record, which includes the Veteran's own contemporaneous reports. The Veteran's service personnel records show that the Veteran attended submarine school from October 2015 to approximately January 2016, and he boarded the USS Kearsarge in May 2016. Therefore, contrary to the Veteran's testimony, the Veteran was not aboard the USS Kearsarge at the time of the undocumented fall. The Board finds the Veteran's reports made closer in time to the undocumented fall more probative than the testimony provided at the Board hearing many years after the reported incident, and in conjunction with a claim for benefits. The fall from a ladder, which the Veteran reported at the May 2021 VA examination caused foot pain, is well-documented in the record.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's testimony that he was only permitted to go to sick call for urgent or severe ailments. However, the Board notes that the Veteran sought care for an ingrown toenail and right foot pain while in service. The Veteran has not provided an explanation for why those concerns would have prevented him from reporting foot pain during the 2019 separation examination. Further, the Board finds that because of the financial incentive, if the Veteran had foot pain that he believed was related to service, he would have submitted a claim for foot pain in March 2020 or in May 2020 when he filed claims seeking entitlement to service connection for other disabilities. Therefore, the Board finds the Veteran's 2019 denial of foot issues more probative than the testimony provided at the Board hearing many years after service, and in conjunction with a claim for benefits.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran injured the right foot in service. However, the mere fact that a veteran had an injury in service does not automatically lead to compensation for future disabilities. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In order to establish service connection, a veteran must show the existence of a current disability, an injury or aggravation in service, and a causal relationship between the current disability and injury in service.

There is no competent evidence linking the Veteran's right foot injury in 2017 to a current diagnosis of bilateral plantar fasciitis. The Veteran is not competent to address the etiology of plantar fasciitis and no doctor, to include the Veteran's own doctors, have related plantar fasciitis to service. The Board notes that the May 2021 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's plantar fasciitis was not the result of service. The opinion was provided by a trained medical professional after reviewing the claims file and considering the Veteran's reports. The Board finds that the evidence of record, to include the Veteran's own statements, supports the May 2021 opinion. Therefore, the May 2021 opinion is assigned greater probative or persuasive value or weight, than the Veteran's lay assertions.

Therefore, the Board finds that the weight of the persuasive evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran's plantar fasciitis had its onset in or is related to service.

Accordingly, as the persuasive weight of the evidence is against entitlement to service connection for plantar fasciitis, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

3. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea

4. Entitlement to service connection for narcolepsy

The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea and narcolepsy.

The service medical records show that an August 2015 Report of Medical Examination did not diagnose sleep apnea or narcolepsy. In an August 201
service.

3. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea

4. Entitlement to service connection for narcolepsy

The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea and narcolepsy.

The service medical records show that an August 2015 Report of Medical Examination did not diagnose sleep apnea or narcolepsy. In an August 2015 Report of Medical History, the Veteran denied frequent trouble sleeping. In June 2018, the Veteran denied any sleep disorder, paused breathing while sleeping, sleep apnea, loud snoring, insomnia, and daytime sleepiness. In a May 2019 Report of Medical History, the Veteran denied frequent trouble sleeping. In a June 2019 Dental Health Questionnaire, the Veteran denied sleep apnea.

The post-service medical records do not show reports, treatment, or diagnoses of sleep apnea or narcolepsy. An August 2020 VA general examination did not show reports or diagnoses of sleep apnea or narcolepsy. In the March 2021 VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, the Veteran indicated that he began having difficulty sleeping in October 2015. In April 2021, the Veteran reported snoring and daytime sleepiness. A May 2021 pulmonary test did not diagnose sleep apnea or narcolepsy.

At a March 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified to sleep issues while in service. The Veteran testified that the sleep issues were noted in the post-service medical records, and his doctor suspected that the Veteran had sleep apnea. However, the representative stated that a sleep study was performed and there was no diagnosis of sleep apnea or narcolepsy.

The Board finds that entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea and narcolepsy is not warranted because the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of sleep apnea or narcolepsy. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328 (1997). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim, to include entitlement to service connection on a direct, presumptive, or secondary basis. Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992).

Although the Veteran reported snoring and daytime sleepiness, no doctor diagnosed the Veteran with a sleep disability, to include sleep apnea or narcolepsy. Further, the Veteran did not report, and the medical evidence of record did not show that the Veteran's reported symptoms reached the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Veteran has not been shown to possess the medical training, expertise, and equipment necessary to diagnose sleep apnea or narcolepsy. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, to the Veteran's lay assertions regarding a current diagnosis of a sleep disability or narcolepsy are assigned little to no probative or persuasive value or weight. Greater probative or persuasive value or weight is assigned to the competent medical evidence of record, to include the May 2021 pulmonary test results, than the Veteran's lay statements.

Accordingly, as there is no competent evidence of a current diagnosis of a sleep apnea or narcolepsy, the claims are denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran.

Harvey P. Roberts

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board E.O., 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

Analyze in VA Law Explorer