THUMB IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The Veteran, an Air National Guard member who served from May 2001 to January 2015, including periods of Federal active duty and training, appeals the denial of service connection for a right thumb disability. The Veteran claimed an in-service injury in 2002 at Sheppard Air Force Base while working as a jet engine mechanic, requiring stitches. However, the Board found this claim not credible. The Veteran's service treatment records from the relevant period did not document any thumb injury, and personnel records indicated he was stationed at Lackland AFB, not Sheppard AFB. Furthermore, his statements to the VA examiner regarding the injury mechanism (sliced off thumb with broken bottle) contradicted his earlier report (injured while working as a jet engine mechanic). The Board noted the inconsistency and lack of corroborating evidence, concluding the Veteran was not credible regarding the in-service event. A VA examiner opined that the condition was less likely than not related to service due to the absence of evidence in the service treatment records. No medical professional supported the Veteran's claim, and the evidence preponderated against a nexus to service. Service connection for the right thumb disability was therefore denied.

Rationale

No evidence of in-service injury in STRs; Contradictory statements regarding injury mechanism; Lack of credible evidence of injury during IADT

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040158
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 251026-602524
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a right thumb disability with nerve damage is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's right thumb disability did not manifest or have its onset during active service, and the disability is not otherwise related to active service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for right thumb disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1133, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran was a member of the Air National Guard from May 2001 to January 2015. He had a period of initial active duty for training (IADT) from February 2002 to August 2002, periods of Federal active duty service from November 2004 to May 2006 and from June 2006 to September 2006, and periods of active-duty training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2025 rating decision of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

The Veteran selected the Direct Review docket when he submitted a VA Form 10182 (Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement)) (NOD) in October 2025. The Veteran indicated that he was appealing an April 2025 rating decision (thumb) and an October 2024 rating decision (thumb, hearing loss, skin). However, the NOD was not filed within a year of the October 2024 rating decision, making it untimely and the Veteran has not provided good cause for filing an untimely appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.203. 

Moreover, the Veteran requested an HLR review of the October 2024 decision, which resulted in the April 2025 decision that found duty to assist errors; after additional development the October 2025 rating decision was issued. The April 2025 HLR decision did not deny any issues, and so it is not appealable. The Board therefore construes the NOD as expressing disagreement with the most recent October 2025 decision. Terry v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 1 (2023). The only issue listed in the October 2025 decision and the October 2025 NOD is the issue of service connection for the right thumb; thus, it is the only issue the Board can consider.

The Board notes that the period for filing an appeal of the October 2025 rating decision has not yet run as of the date of this decision so the Veteran may file a timely appeal of the remaining issues. He may also submit a Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence to address any deficiencies and secure another decision on the merits. If such is received within a year of the denial, continuity of pursuit is preserved. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h).

Turning back to the issue on appeal, under the Direct Review docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the rating decision on appeal, here the October 2025 rating decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302. The Veteran has not submitted any additional evidence. 

Service connection is awarded for disability that is the result of a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

The term "active military, naval, or air service" includes (1) active duty, (2) any period of ACDUTRA during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and (3) any period of inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a); Bigg
 or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F. 3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

The term "active military, naval, or air service" includes (1) active duty, (2) any period of ACDUTRA during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and (3) any period of inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a); Biggins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 474.

To have basic eligibility for Veterans benefits based on a period of duty as a member of a state Army National Guard, a National Guardsman must have been ordered into Federal service by the President of the United States, see 10 U.S.C.A. § 12401, or must have performed "full-time duty" under the provisions of 32 U.S.C.A. §§ [315], 502, 503, 504, or 505. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101(21), (22)(C); Allen v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 54, 58 (2007). Service on active duty alone is sufficient to meet the statutory definition of veteran, however, service on ACDUTRA (or INACDUTRA), without more, will not suffice to give one "veteran" status. Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 172 (2010).

With specific regard to National Guard service, the presumptions of soundness, aggravation, and service connection for chronic diseases do not apply to claimants, even those with Veteran status from prior periods of service, for claims based on periods of ACDUTRA. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24), 1137; Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40 (2010).

The Veteran reported that he injured his right thumb in 2002 while at Sheppard Air Force Base (AFB). The Veteran was on IADT from February 2002 to August 2002, and his service treatment records (STRs) from this time period do not show any injuries to his right thumb. Also, his personnel records indicate he was at Lackland AFB and not Sheppard AFB. A July 2002 STR notes "no health problems." Subsequent Reserve STRs do not contain complaints related to his right thumb.

In May 2024, the Veteran reported his right thumb injury with nerve damage happened while he was on active duty at Sheppard AFB in Texas. He was working as a jet engine mechanic and required stitches to reattach the end of his thumb.

In an October 2025 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he sliced off the top of his finger with a broken bottle and had stitches in 2002. He reported his current symptoms were nerve pain and tingling when he bumps his thumb, occasional numbness, and increased pain with overuse. The examiner noted that the Veteran had a scar on his right thumb and his range-of-motion was abnormal. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's right thumb injury was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness because there was no evidence of such an injury occurring in his STRs.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to describe symptoms and their existence over time. However, the Board finds that his report of a right thumb injury during IADT is not credible. His service records appear complete, and his STRs from 2002 do not include any right thumb injury or any injury requiring stitches. He remained in the Guard for over a decade, and never reported an injury to his right thumb. Moreover, the Veteran's report to the VA examiner that he sliced his thumb off with a broken bottle contradicts his May 2024 statement that he injured his thumb while working as a jet engine mechanic. Thus, the Board finds the Veteran is not credible in this regard, and finds no evidence that he injured his right thumb during IADT.

While the Veteran has expressed his belief in a connection, he lacks the knowledge and training required to render a nexus opinion on a cause-and-effect relationship unobservable to a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). The Veteran has simply asserted his opinion, without a clear rationale or support; no probative value is given his statements beyond their worth as physical observations.

No medical professional has supported the
 off with a broken bottle contradicts his May 2024 statement that he injured his thumb while working as a jet engine mechanic. Thus, the Board finds the Veteran is not credible in this regard, and finds no evidence that he injured his right thumb during IADT.

While the Veteran has expressed his belief in a connection, he lacks the knowledge and training required to render a nexus opinion on a cause-and-effect relationship unobservable to a lay person. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). The Veteran has simply asserted his opinion, without a clear rationale or support; no probative value is given his statements beyond their worth as physical observations.

No medical professional has supported the Veteran's position, and there is no evidence that the right thumb injury occurred in-service. Thus, service connection is not warranted. As there is no evidence to support any finding of a nexus between service and Veteran's current right thumb disability, entitlement to the benefit sought is not warranted. The weight of the evidence is persuasively against the Veteran's claim, and the doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

The Veteran may submit a Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence to address these deficiencies and secure another decision on the merits. If such is received within a year of this denial, continuity of pursuit is preserved. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h).

 

 

WILLIAM H. DONNELLY

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	L.M. Barletta

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.