Case A26040060

C. CRAWFORD · 2026 · Case ID: A26040060

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran served from October 1983 to July 1991. The Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for several conditions, including left foot pes planus, an acquired psychiatric disorder, left eye injury residuals, right and left hip disorders, right and left knee disorders, and a low back disorder. The Veteran withdrew the claim for left foot pes planus at the Board hearing, leading to its dismissal. For the acquired psychiatric disorder, the Board denied service connection, finding no current diagnosis despite the Veteran's testimony about stressful events and counseling during service. The Board noted the absence of a diagnosed psychiatric disorder and that the Veteran's testimony about counseling was not supported by service treatment records. The remaining claims for left eye injury residuals, right foot pes planus, right and left hip disorders, right and left knee disorders, and a low back disorder were remanded for further development. The remand directives included obtaining new medical opinions on the etiology of the left eye injury residuals, the worsening of the right foot pes planus during service, the relationship between the hip and knee disorders and the pes planus claim, and the connection between the low back disorder and the service-connected left shoulder rotator cuff tear. The Board also noted that certain evidence submitted after the rating decision could be considered by the agency of original jurisdiction on remand.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

200305-73373

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040060
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 200305-73373
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for left foot pes planus is dismissed.

Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

REMANDED

Service connection for left eye injury residuals is remanded.

Service connection for right foot pes planus is remanded.

Service connection for a right hip disorder is remanded.

Service connection for a left hip disorder is remanded.

Service connection for a right knee disorder is remanded.

Service connection for a left knee disorder is remanded.

Service connection for a low back disorder is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran withdrew the issue of service connection for left foot pes planus at the Board hearing.

2. The Veteran does not have a currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The issue of service connection for left foot pes planus is dismissed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

2. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 4.125-4.130.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1983 to July 1991.

The case is on appeal from a December 2019 rating decision in which service connection for right and left hip arthritis; right and left knee pain; chronic lower back pain; a left eye injury; and agitation, irritability, and hostility were denied. This case is also on appeal from a February 2020 rating decision in which service connection for bilateral pes planus was denied. In March 2020, the Veteran filed a VA Form 10182 to initiate an appeal on the Board's Hearing Docket. The Veteran cited the February 2020 rating decision for pes planus and December 2020 as the date of the decision for the remaining issues. However, based on the date of receipt of the VA Form 10182 in March 2020, the Board finds that the date of decision for the remaining issues is the date on which the December 2019 rating decision was issued. In May 2024, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. Thus, the Board will review the evidence of record at the time of the decisions on appeal, the Board hearing testimony, and any evidence submitted at or within 90 days after the Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302.

To ensure that all diagnosed disorders are considered, the Board has recharacterized the issues on appeal as entitlement to service connection for right and left hip disorders, right and left knee disorders, a low back disorder, and an acquired psychiatric disorder. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009).

Evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed, including an August 2025 Statement in Support of Claim for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, a July 2023 VA Foot Examination, and VA treatment records. For all the claims other than service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, the January 2020 VA Feet Examinations are also not reviewable in this appeal. As the Board is deciding the claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder it may not consider this evidence in its decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. The Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim 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. As the Board is remanding the claims of service connection for residuals of an eye injury, right foot pes planus, a right hip disorder, a left hip disorder, a right knee disorder, a left knee disorder, and a low back disorder for further development, this additional evidence will be considered by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) in the adjudication of those claims.

1. Service connection for left foot pes planus

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. An appeal may be withdrawn by the Veteran
Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. As the Board is remanding the claims of service connection for residuals of an eye injury, right foot pes planus, a right hip disorder, a left hip disorder, a right knee disorder, a left knee disorder, and a low back disorder for further development, this additional evidence will be considered by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) in the adjudication of those claims.

1. Service connection for left foot pes planus

In an August 2023 rating decision, service connection for left foot pes planus, plantar fasciitis, and metatarsalgia was granted, effective June 17, 2022. At the Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that he wished to withdraw the issue of entitlement to service connection for left foot pes planus. The presiding Veterans Law Judge informed the Veteran that no additional action would be taken on the claim if the claim were withdrawn. The Veteran confirmed that he wished to withdraw the claim. He stated that he "was asked if [he] wanted to take it back to an earlier date." However, he stated that he was "satisfied with the judgment" and that was "all [he] was looking for."

The Board finds that the Veteran's withdrawal of the issue of entitlement to service connection for left foot pes planus on appeal is "explicit, unambiguous, and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant." DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011); see also Acree v O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018). At the Board hearing, the Veteran indicated that he wished to withdraw the issue from appellate consideration and did not want to pursue the issue as part of this appeal which might result in an earlier effective date for service connection.

Therefore, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration with regard to the issue of entitlement to service connection for left foot pes planus, and the issue is dismissed.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. A veteran seeking compensation under these provisions must establish three elements: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service." Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

To meet the present disability element of service connection, there must be a diagnosed disorder during the pendency of the claim, or just prior to filing the claim with VA. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Brammer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992).

For certain chronic conditions listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), service connection is available where the condition onset within a year after separation from service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307.

Service connection may also be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

2. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder

The Veteran is claiming service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

The Veteran stated in his August 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ that he had agitation, irritability, and hostility due to service. In September 2019, he stated that, while stationed in Panama, he alone with his canine partner would cover the perimeter of the base looking to intercept raid parties. On his first deployment to Honduras, while driving around the base perimeter with the Kennel Master, Honduran soldiers were walking patrol in the dark. The commander of the Honduran soldiers arrived and introduced himself. After the Honduran commander drove away, shots were fired about
§ 3.310.

2. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder

The Veteran is claiming service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

At the Board hearing, the Veteran testified that he investigated deaths, many of which were suicides and domestic incidents. He also had specialized duties with canines and stated that he had consecutive months with 100 dog bites per month. He also testified that he responded to the aftermath of an explosion in which people were severely injured. He testified that there were several situations in which they were ordered to seek counselling. The Veteran also testified that he had used his employer's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in the past. However, the Veteran testified that he had not been diagnosed with an acquired psychiatric disorder.

The Board finds that the Veteran does not have an acquired psychiatric disorder. As the Veteran testified at the Board hearing, he had undergone counselling at times but was not aware if he had ever been diagnosed with an acquired psychiatric disorder. Although the Veteran has testified as to several traumatic incidents during service, including responding to a mortally wounded Honduran commander, responding to severely injured people due to an explosion, and numerous dog bites, in the absence of a currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder, service connection is not available. Brammer, supra; see also Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393 (2020) (holding that, for acquired psychiatric disorders, a current diagnosis conforming to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition is required). The Board notes that the Veteran testified at the Board hearing that he was required to undergo counselling during service. However, service treatment records (STRs) do not reflect that the Veteran underwent counselling during service. There is no pre-decisional duty to assist error. Further, the Veteran testified at the Board hearing that he had received counselling from his employers EAP and through VA. However, there is no indication of private counselling or psychiatric treatment through VA in the pre-decisional evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). The Veteran may want to consider filing a supplemental claim and citing his Board hearing testimony as potential new and relevant evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. However, at this time, as the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Service connection for residuals of a left eye injury.

The Board finds that, based on the pre-decisional evidence of record, a remand is needed to obtain further information regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's left eye injury residuals. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a).

The Veteran stated that hot brass burned his eye during boot camp. A December 1983 STR notes that the Veteran was hit in the left eye with hot brass three days earlier. There were scales on the eye lid.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination of his eyes in December 2019. It was noted that the Veteran had a history of superficial injury to the left eye and choroidal nevus in the right eye. The Veteran noted that, since the injury, he has had a sensation of pressing on the right eye. Corrected vision was 20/20 or better bilaterally. However, the examiner never addressed the Veteran's report of a pressing sensation on the left eye, which could indicate a potential residual from the left eye injury.

The Board acknowledges that at the Board hearing the Veteran testified that the eye was dry and itch quite often over the years and that the Veteran reported getting his eyes checked at PearleVision every
The Veteran was afforded a VA examination of his eyes in December 2019. It was noted that the Veteran had a history of superficial injury to the left eye and choroidal nevus in the right eye. The Veteran noted that, since the injury, he has had a sensation of pressing on the right eye. Corrected vision was 20/20 or better bilaterally. However, the examiner never addressed the Veteran's report of a pressing sensation on the left eye, which could indicate a potential residual from the left eye injury.

The Board acknowledges that at the Board hearing the Veteran testified that the eye was dry and itch quite often over the years and that the Veteran reported getting his eyes checked at PearleVision every year. Because this information was provided only at the Board hearing, after the rating decision on appeal, the Board cannot use this evidence as a basis for remand. Id. However, the Veteran is free to bring this information to the attention of the AOJ on remand. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2501, 3.2502.

2. Service connection for right foot pes planus.

The Board finds that, based on the pre-decisional evidence of record, a remand is necessary to obtain an addendum medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's right foot pes planus. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a).

Flat feet were noted on the report of medical examination upon entry into service in June 1983.

December 2015 private treatment records show that the Veteran had a right foot bunion surgery and had been diagnosed with hallux limitus. By September 2019, mild degenerative changes in the first metatarsal phalangeal joint were also noted.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination of his feet in January 2020. Diagnoses of pes planus, hallux valgus, and degenerative arthritis were noted. The Veteran reported having knee pain when running, including for physical training in Panama. The doctor looked at his feet and discovered it was his feet that were causing his problems.

Because flat feet were noted on entry into service, the examiner opined that there was no evidence to indicate that the Veteran continued to suffer from the disorder during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.306. The examiner explained that the Veteran's records were negative for complaints and treatments for feet disorders. Rather, the Veteran did not undergo hallux valgus surgery until 2015, 24 years after separation from service. However, the examiner did not address the Veteran's statement at the January 2020 examination, that he went to a doctor because his knees were hurting and the doctor, upon examination, discovered that the Veteran's knee problems were related to his feet. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007). This indicates that the Veteran's feet may have undergone a worsening beyond the natural progression of the disorder during service. Thus, a remand for an addendum medical opinion is needed.

3. Service connection for a right hip disorder.

4. Service connection for a left hip disorder.

5. Service connection for a right knee disorder.

6. Service connection for a left knee disorder.

The Board finds that, based on the pre-decisional evidence of record, a remand of the claims of entitlement to service connection for right and left hip disorders and right and left knee disorders is necessary. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). In the August 2019 VA Form 21-526, the Veteran claimed that his hip and knee disorders were secondary to his pes planus, making the hip and knee claims inextricably intertwined with the pes planus claim. As the Board is remanding the claim of entitlement to service connection for right foot pes planus, the Board must also remand the claims of entitlement to service connection for right and left hip disorders and right and left knee disorders. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180 (1991).

7. Service connection for a low back disorder.

The Board finds that, based on the pre-decisional evidence of record, a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination of his low back disorder. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). Generally, VA is to afford a veteran a VA examination when there is an indication that a current disability might be related to service. See McLendon, supra.

The Veteran on his August 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ stated that he injured his back while stationed at Aberdeen Proving Ground.

In August 2017, the Veteran reported back strain starting a week earlier. He began having tight
. App. 180 (1991).

7. Service connection for a low back disorder.

The Veteran on his August 2019 VA Form 21-526EZ stated that he injured his back while stationed at Aberdeen Proving Ground.

In August 2017, the Veteran reported back strain starting a week earlier. He began having tightness near his shoulder blade and, upon bending his head forward, he could feel tightness in his back. In other words, the Veteran's report memorialized in August 2017 indicates that the Veteran's back strain might be related to his left shoulder pain. Notably, the Veteran is service connected for a left shoulder rotator cuff tear. Therefore, a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran a VA examination of his lumbar spine and to determine whether his service-connected left shoulder rotator cuff tear caused or aggravated any current low back disorder.

The Veteran also testified at the Board hearing that his back began hurting when he was in Panama working with a dog in excess of 100 pounds. Because this evidence was received after the rating decision on appeal, the Board will not list this evidence in the remand directives below. However, the Veteran is free to highlight this evidence for the examiner's consideration on remand.

The matters are REMANDED for the following actions:

1. Obtain a new medical opinion to determine the etiology of the Veteran's left eye injury residuals. Specifically, the examiner should address the following:

(A) Identify and, if possible, diagnose all left eye injury residuals, including the pressure on left eye noted by the Veteran.

(B) For all residuals noted, is it at least as likely as not that the Veteran's left eye injury residuals, including pressure on the eye lid, are related to service or any event of service?

A complete rationale should be provided for any opinion rendered.

2. Obtain a new medical opinion to determine the etiology of the Veteran's right foot disorder. Specifically, the examiner should address the following:

(A) Is it at least as likely as not that there was a permanent worsening (aggravation) of the Veteran's right foot disorder due to service?

(B) If the Veteran's right foot disorders were aggravated by service, was the increase in severity clearly and unmistakably due to the natural progression of the disease?

A complete rationale should be provided for any opinion rendered. Please address the Veteran's statement at the January 2020 VA examination that when he went to the doctor for his knees, upon examination of his feet, the doctor told him that his feet were causing his knee problems.

3. Afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current low back disorder. Specifically, the examiner should address the following:

(A) Does the Veteran have, or since filing the claim in August 2019 had, a low back disorder?

(B) For any low back disorder identified, is it at least as likely as not that the low back disorder was caused or aggravated by the Veteran's left shoulder rotator cuff tear?

(Continued on next page)

A complete rationale should be provided for any opinion rendered. Please address the August 2017 private treatment record in which the Veteran noted left shoulder pain which when he bent his head forward spread to his back.

C. CRAWFORD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. George

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