DERMATITIS OR ECZEMA

Summary

The veteran, who served from August 1979 to September 1982, appeals the denial of an initial compensable rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB). The veteran was granted service connection for PFB with a noncompensable rating in November 2019. The Board previously denied an initial compensable rating in November 2023. The veteran's attorney argued that a December 2021 VA examination, considered new and relevant evidence, warranted a higher rating prior to August 24, 2021. However, the Board found this recharacterization erroneous, as the appeal stream originated from a service connection claim, not an effective date claim. The Board's jurisdiction was limited to the period on appeal, and the December 2021 examination could not be considered. The Board reviewed a September 2019 VA examination where the examiner diagnosed PFB, noting papules on the jawline but no scarring or disfigurement. The examiner found less than five percent of exposed areas affected and no treatment within the past 12 months. The Board found the September 2019 examination adequate, concluding that the PFB did not manifest with scarring or disfigurement during the appeal period, and therefore did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under DC 7806. The appeal for a higher rating was denied.

Rationale

PFB did not manifest with scarring or disfigurement.; PFB did not cover at least 5% of exposed areas.; PFB did not require treatment within the past 12 months.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040080
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 251027-602640
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) is denied. 

FINDING OF FACT

PFB has been manifested by inflamed papules along the jawline with no scarring or disfigurement during the appeal period.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for a compensable rating for PFB prior to August 24, 2021, are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.14, 4.21, 4.124, DC 7813-7800.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1979 to September 1982.  

In the October 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the November 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301.  Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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 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. 

Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for PFB is denied. 

As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that this appeal stream arises from disagreement with the Veteran's initial noncompensable rating.  The Veteran was granted service connection for PFB with a noncompensable rating in a November 2019 rating decision.  The Veteran appealed this decision with a December 2019 10182 Notice of Disagreement.  The Board denied an initial compensable rating in a November 2023 Board decision.  The Veteran filed a February 2024 Supplemental Claim, appealing the Board's initial rating denial.  The Veteran's attorney asserted that new and relevant evidence in the form of a December 2021 VA examination had been added to the claims file, so a higher rating prior to August 24, 2021, was warranted.  A higher initial rating was denied in a June 2024 rating decision.  The Veteran filed for a higher-level review of the denial in July 2024.  The claim was denied in the November 2024 rating decision on appeal.  Yet this decision also recharacterized the Veteran's claim as an earlier effective date for the 30 percent rating of PFB.  However, the Board finds this recharacterization was erroneous.  

The issue on appeal is whether the Veteran was entitled to an initial compensable rating for his PFB.  

While a claim for an earlier effective date for an increase rating may include a lookback period one year prior to the date of claim.  That is not the case in this appeal because this appeal stream originated from a service connection claim and the initial rating rewarded by the AOJ.  Thus, to the extent the Board would have jurisdiction of an effective date claim, it would be limited to an effective date for the grant of service connection for the Veteran's PFB.  However, a review of the Veteran's contentions does not indicate that the Veteran is appealing the effective date of service connection of his PFB.  

Also, a review of the Veteran's claims file indicates that in a separate AMA appeal stream, the AOJ denied the Veteran an effective date prior to August 24, 2021, for his 30 percent rating. The Veteran did not appeal this decision.  The Board may not merge that unappealed decision into that which is currently before the Board in this docket (251027-602640).  Accordingly, the decision will not reach the merits of whether the effective date for the 30 percent rating increase should be prior to August 24, 2021. 

Facts 

Prior to August 24, 2021, the Veteran was rated at 0 percent for
 date of service connection of his PFB.  

Also, a review of the Veteran's claims file indicates that in a separate AMA appeal stream, the AOJ denied the Veteran an effective date prior to August 24, 2021, for his 30 percent rating. The Veteran did not appeal this decision.  The Board may not merge that unappealed decision into that which is currently before the Board in this docket (251027-602640).  Accordingly, the decision will not reach the merits of whether the effective date for the 30 percent rating increase should be prior to August 24, 2021. 

Facts 

Prior to August 24, 2021, the Veteran was rated at 0 percent for PFB under DC 7813-7800, which utilizes the rating criterium for disfigurement of the head, face or neck, for scars, or for dermatitis depending on the predominant disability, the evidence must show:

"     disfigurement of the head, face, or neck with one characteristic of disfigurement, the eight characteristics being scars 5 or more inches (in.) in length; scars at least one-quarter in. wide at the widest part; surface contour scar elevated or depressed on palpation; scar adherent to underlying tissue; skin hypo- or hyperpigmented in an area exceeding 6 square inches (sq. in.); skin texture abnormal in an area exceeding 6 sq. in.; underlying skin tissue missing in an area exceeding 6 sq. in.; or skin indurated and inflexible in an area exceeding 6 sq. in. (10% under DC 7800);

"     dermatitis or eczema covering at least 5 percent, but less than 20%, of the entire body or exposed areas (10% under DC 7806); or,

"     dermatitis or eczema requiring intermittent systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs for a total duration of less than six weeks during the past twelve-month period (10% under DC 7806).

Turning to the medical evidence, a September 2019 VA examiner diagnosed PFB. The Veteran reported symptoms including papules along the jawline.  He also noted that he had previously used topical medication but was not doing so currently. On examination, there was no scarring or disfigurement, no scars, no pustules, and no evidence of infection. The Veteran was noted to not have been treated with oral or topical medications in the past 12 months for any skin disorder. The examiner noted that less than five percent of the exposed body area was affected by PFB. Further, the examiner noted that the condition manifested through inflamed papules on the jawline.

The Veteran's skin disability did not manifest through scarring or disfigurement during the appeal period. Thus, it is rated as dermatitis or eczema under DC 7806, which provides that a skin condition covering less than 5 percent of the entire body or less than 5 percent of exposed areas affected, and; requiring no more than topical therapy during the past 12-month period is rated as noncompensable.

Analysis 

Based on a review of the file, the medical evidence does not support a compensable rating on this basis.  In this regard, the medical evidence shows that PFB did not require treatment, did not result in scarring or disfigurement, and did not cover at least 5 percent of the entire body or exposed areas affected prior to August 2021.  As such, the medical evidence does not support a compensable rating.

To the extent that the Veteran has argued that the September 2019 VA examiner erred by finding that PFB did not cause scaring or disfigurement of the head, face, or neck, the Board finds that the examination was adequate.  The examiner reviewed the medical history, examined the Veteran, and completed all required sections of the disability benefits questionnaire.  After examining the Veteran, he determined that scarring or disfigurement of the head, face, or neck was not present.  The Board affords high probative value to this determination and finds no reason that it was in error.

Thus, to the extent the Veteran's attorney argues that the Board should consider a December 2021 VA examination outside the period on appeal, the Board does not find this is warranted.  The September 2019 VA examination was adequate as to the contemporaneous manifestations of the Veteran's PFB.  

Also, the Board does not find a remand for a retrospective opinion as to the Veteran's symptoms is warranted.  The Board's is limited to remand issues when necessary to correct a pre-decisional duty to assist error is not.  Yet that is not the case here.  Specifically, the evidence does not show that the Veteran had scarring of the
ative value to this determination and finds no reason that it was in error.

Thus, to the extent the Veteran's attorney argues that the Board should consider a December 2021 VA examination outside the period on appeal, the Board does not find this is warranted.  The September 2019 VA examination was adequate as to the contemporaneous manifestations of the Veteran's PFB.  

Also, the Board does not find a remand for a retrospective opinion as to the Veteran's symptoms is warranted.  The Board's is limited to remand issues when necessary to correct a pre-decisional duty to assist error is not.  Yet that is not the case here.  Specifically, the evidence does not show that the Veteran had scarring of the face at the time of his examination or during the period on appeal. 

As such, it is not a pre-decisional duty to assist error and the Board is not required to remand AMA claims for correction of such errors.  38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a).

In closing, the appeal for a higher rating is denied. 

 

 

G. A. WASIK

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Wade, 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.