SINUSITIS

Summary

The veteran, who served from July 1997 to July 2001, appeals the denial of service connection for sinusitis and rhinitis. The veteran contends these conditions are due to toxic exposures related to his MOS as a firefighter. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the prior decision, noting that no additional evidence submitted after the AOJ's February 2025 rating decision could be considered. The Board found that the evidence of record did not demonstrate the existence of sinusitis or rhinitis. While the veteran's service treatment records (STRs) from 1998 and 2000 indicated assessments of sinusitis and sinus congestion, there were no medical treatment records within the applicable evidentiary window showing complaints, treatment, or diagnoses of sinusitis or rhinitis. The Board concluded that the persuasive weight of the evidence was against the existence of these conditions, and therefore, service connection was denied. The Board acknowledged the veteran's belief in his claim but found the evidence did not support a diagnosis of sinusitis or rhinitis, thus denying the claims on the merits.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of sinusitis found in the record.; Service treatment records showed some assessments of sinusitis, but no treatment or complaints within the applicable evidentiary window.; Weight of the evidence is against the existence of the condition.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040212
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 250225-520023
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for rhinitis is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The persuasive weight of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had sinusitis at any time during the appeal. 

2. The persuasive weight of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had rhinitis at any time during the appeal. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for sinusitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from July 1997 to July 2001. 

On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). This law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. This decision has been written consistent with the new AMA framework.

In a November 2024 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied entitlement to service connection for sinusitis and rhinitis. The Veteran submitted a Higher-Level Review (HLR) request in November 2024. In a February 2025 rating decision, the AOJ confirmed and continued the previous denials of service connection for sinusitis and rhinitis. 

The Veteran submitted a timely VA Form 10182 (Notice of Disagreement) in February 2025 and, in so doing, requested direct review by the Board. 

Based on the Veteran's choice to pursue a direct review of his appeal, the Board will decide the appeal "based on the evidence of record at the time of the prior decision." Accordingly, no additionally submitted evidence may be considered. 

Evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed. As such, the Board 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.

The Board observes that, in the February 2025 rating decision, the AOJ readjudicated the Veteran's claims for service connection on the merits. The Board notes that such is an implicit finding of new and relevant evidence having been received. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Accordingly, a discussion as to whether new and relevant evidence has been received sufficient to readjudicate the claims is not required herein. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis

2. Entitlement to service connection for rhinitis

Service connection is granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §?1110; 38?C.F.R. §?3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence of: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) inservice 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). Under?38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b), service connection will be presumed where there are either chronic symptoms shown in service or continuity of symptomatology since service for diseases identified as "chronic" in?38?C.F.R. § 3.309(a).?Walker
?3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence of: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) inservice 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). Under?38?C.F.R. §?3.303(b), service connection will be presumed where there are either chronic symptoms shown in service or continuity of symptomatology since service for diseases identified as "chronic" in?38?C.F.R. § 3.309(a).?Walker v. Shinseki,?718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The presence of a chronic disability at any time during the claim process can justify a grant of service connection, even if the disability has since resolved or where the most recent diagnosis is negative. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007).

In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the weight of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant.

To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must persuasively stand against a finding that the evidence is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal" to the evidence that supports the claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

The Veteran contends that he has sinusitis and rhinitis related to his military service. He contends that these conditions are due to toxic exposures related to his military occupational specialty (MOS) of firefighter. October 2024 Fully Developed Claim. 

After a thorough review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have sinusitis and rhinitis. Initially, and in this regard, the Board notes that medical records associated with the file do not reflect diagnoses of, or treatment for, sinusitis and rhinitis. 

A November 2024 toxic risk exposure activity (TERA) memorandum confirmed the Veteran's participation in a TERA. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) include a May 1998 assessment of sinusitis/seasonal allergic rhinitis, a September 1998 report of sinus congestion, and a November 1998 assessment of sinusitis. The Veteran's STRs additionally include a March 1999 assessment of sinusitis and an August 2000 suggestion of acute sinusitis.   

There are no medical treatment records during the applicable evidentiary window that include any complaints of, treatment for, or diagnoses of sinusitis or rhinitis.

The Veteran has not been accorded a VA examination or medical opinion regarding his claims for service connection for sinusitis and rhinitis. However, no VA examination or medical opinion is needed in this case as the weight of the evidence demonstrates no indication of a disability. As there is no evidence that indicates that the Veteran has sinusitis and rhinitis that may be associated with service, a VA examination is not needed in this case. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).

The threshold requirement for service connection is competent evidence of the existence of the claimed disability at some point during the appeal. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007), Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). While the Board recognizes the Veteran's sincere belief in his claim, the most competent evidence of record does not show that he has had a diagnosis of sinusitis and/or rhinitis any time during the current appeal. Thus, the record does not support service connection for sinusitis or service connection for rhinitis. In reaching this determination, the Board is mindful that all reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the Veteran's favor. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). However, because the persuasive weight of the evidence is against the claim, it must be denied.

 

 

Marcus N. Fulton

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans
1992). While the Board recognizes the Veteran's sincere belief in his claim, the most competent evidence of record does not show that he has had a diagnosis of sinusitis and/or rhinitis any time during the current appeal. Thus, the record does not support service connection for sinusitis or service connection for rhinitis. In reaching this determination, the Board is mindful that all reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the Veteran's favor. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). However, because the persuasive weight of the evidence is against the claim, it must be denied.

 

 

Marcus N. Fulton

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Goreham, A.

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.