ALLERGIC OR VASOMOTOR RHINITIS

Summary

The veteran, who served from March 2013 to March 2019, appealed the denial of service connection for allergic rhinitis and a chronic cervical spine disorder, and sought service connection for a skin disorder. The appeal for allergic rhinitis was dismissed as the veteran withdrew the issue at a hearing, having already received a grant of service connection for it in a separate appeal stream. For the cervical spine disorder, the Board found that the veteran failed to attend multiple scheduled VA examinations without good cause, and that the evidence of record did not support a current diagnosis or symptoms related to the neck. The Board found VA met its duty to assist, and proceeded based on the available evidence, which did not demonstrate a chronic cervical spine disorder incurred in service. For the skin disorder, pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), the veteran claimed it began in service and resulted in a no-shave profile. Service treatment records confirmed a history of PFB and the no-shave profile. The Board found the veteran's lay testimony regarding the chronicity and symptoms of PFB credible and consistent with the record, and therefore granted service connection for the skin disorder.

Rationale

Veteran withdrew appeal at hearing; Service connection granted in separate appeal stream

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040218
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 241209-498986
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for allergic rhinitis is dismissed.

Service connection for a chronic cervical spine disorder is denied.

Service connection for a skin disorder is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran served on active duty from March 2013 to March 2019.

2. The appeal for service connection for allergic rhinitis was withdrawn at a January 2026 hearing before the Board.

3. A chronic cervical spine disorder has not been shown. 

4. A skin disorder, diagnosed as pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB), is etiologically related to service. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for dismissal of the appeal of service connection for allergic rhinitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500(b), 20.205 (2025).

2. A chronic cervical spine disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2025).

3. A skin disorder was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2025).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

This decision has been written under the guidelines of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). In September 2019, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) denied service connection. In February 2020, the Veteran appealed to the Board via a VA Form 10182 and elected the hearing docket. A hearing was held before the Board in June 2022. 

In August 2023, the Board remanded the claim for further development. In October 2024, service connection continued to be denied. In December 2024, the Veteran requested another hearing, which was held in January 2026. Therefore, the Board may consider only the evidence of record at the time of the AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).

Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

For a disorder to be service connected, it must be shown at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during or contemporary to the pendency of the appeal. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). That is, service connection may only be granted for a current disability; when a claimed condition is not shown, there may be no grant of service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

Allergic Rhinitis

Turning to the merits of the appeal, a September 2019 rating decision denied service connection for allergic rhinitis.  The Veteran timely disagreed with that decision and appealed to the Board in a February 2020 VA Form 10182. 

In August 2023, the Board remanded the claim for further development. In October 2024, service connection for allergic rhinitis continued to be denied. The Veteran requested a second hearing. In January 2025, the AOJ granted service connection for allergic rhinitis. The Veteran disagreed with the assigned evaluation and that issue is appealed in a separate appeal stream. 

At the January 2026 hearing, the Veteran expressed an intent to withdraw the issue of service connection. To that end, when asked whether he intended to withdraw the issue, he responded in the affirmative. The representative noted that the issue had been granted in a separate
 decision and appealed to the Board in a February 2020 VA Form 10182. 

In August 2023, the Board remanded the claim for further development. In October 2024, service connection for allergic rhinitis continued to be denied. The Veteran requested a second hearing. In January 2025, the AOJ granted service connection for allergic rhinitis. The Veteran disagreed with the assigned evaluation and that issue is appealed in a separate appeal stream. 

At the January 2026 hearing, the Veteran expressed an intent to withdraw the issue of service connection. To that end, when asked whether he intended to withdraw the issue, he responded in the affirmative. The representative noted that the issue had been granted in a separate appeal stream and "move[d] the Board to withdraw the service connection issue from this appeal stream."

Thus, the Veteran explicitly and unambiguously withdrew the appeal on the issue of service connection for allergic rhinitis with the consultation of the attorney-representative. Hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 47 (2011).

Cervical Spine

The Veteran contends he has a neck disorder that was incurred in service. As to a current disorder, in August 2019 and September 2024, the AOJ scheduled the Veteran for three different examinations to determine the nature and etiology of the neck disorder; however, the examination request reports indicated that he failed to attend the scheduled examinations. Although he indicated that he was not provided with notice, there is no evidence that he provided good cause for the failure to attend. 

Initially, the Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination in August 2019 and was deemed a "no show." Another examination was rescheduled later that month and he was noted to be "unavailable." During that time, correspondence was sent to the address of record in Hampton, VA. Notably, he was subsequently sent notice of an examination for an unrelated claim to the same address in Hampton, VA and successfully attended that scheduled appointment. 

In September 2024, the Veteran was again scheduled for another examination. Records indicate that he was deemed a "no show." During that time, correspondence was sent to the address of record in Ocala, FL. Since that time, an updated address has not been provided to suggest that he lives at a different address. Again, he was subsequently sent notice of an examination for an unrelated claim to the same address in Ocala, FL and successfully attended that scheduled appointment too. Therefore, the evidence suggests that notice was sent to the proper address of record.

The duty to assist in the development and the adjudication of a claim is not a one-way street. Wamhoff v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 517, 522 (1996); Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91, 100 (1993); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). A veteran must bear some responsibility in substantiating the claim. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a), when entitlement to a benefit cannot be established without a current VA examination or reexamination, and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination or reexamination, action shall be taken in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) or (c) as appropriate. 

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b), when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record, but when a claimant fails to report without good cause for an examination scheduled in conjunction with a reopened claim or a claim for increase, the claim shall be denied.

The Board finds that VA met its duty to assist by affording the Veteran the opportunity to attend a VA examination that could have generated evidence to support the claim. In this case, good cause has not been shown and he did not submit any correspondence detailing the circumstances of the missed examination.  Correspondence confirms the notification of the scheduled examination was sent to the correct address(es) on file. In light of this, the Board will proceed based on the evidence of record.

Turning to the evidence, as to a current diagnosis, the Veteran has not been diagnosed with a chronic cervical spine disorder. While he complained of neck pain and functional impairment, the treatment records do not show that the pain amounted to functional impairment. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Rather, VA clinical records demonstrate that he denied neck pain.
 support the claim. In this case, good cause has not been shown and he did not submit any correspondence detailing the circumstances of the missed examination.  Correspondence confirms the notification of the scheduled examination was sent to the correct address(es) on file. In light of this, the Board will proceed based on the evidence of record.

Turning to the evidence, as to a current diagnosis, the Veteran has not been diagnosed with a chronic cervical spine disorder. While he complained of neck pain and functional impairment, the treatment records do not show that the pain amounted to functional impairment. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Rather, VA clinical records demonstrate that he denied neck pain. Clinical records also demonstrate an active problem list consisting of psychological disorders, abdominal pain, and foot pain but nothing reasonably related to the neck or cervical spine.

Service treatment records (STRs) variously show complaints for neck pain and an assessment for neck strain in August 2013; however, there is no current diagnosis reasonably related to the neck that can be attributed to his complaints in service. To date, the Veteran has failed to provide or allege any documentation supporting current diagnosis for the neck. Moreover, the competent medical evidence of record fails to show a diagnosis of, or symptoms related to the neck at any time during the appeal period. 

To the extent that the Veteran believes he has a neck disorder, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis as the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the medical evidence of record which does not demonstrate any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for the neck. In sum, the medical evidence does not support the appeal.

Skin Disorder

The Veteran claims that service connection is warranted for PFB because it began in service. He testified that he experienced PFB in service and as a result he was placed on a no-shave chit.

Turning to the evidence, as to a current disorder, a VA clinical records do not show a skin disorder but STRs reflect a history and assessment for PFB and confirm that the Veteran was placed on a no-shave chit due to a history of PFB. He filed the claim for service connection immediately following separation from service in 2019. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the first element of service connection was met at the time he filed the claim. 

Because of the past difficulties shaving, the Veteran currently maintained a full, trim beard and no longer shaved down to the skin. He reported cutting and scarring from clippers, ingrown hairs, bumps, bleeding, discoloration, and bald patches around his beard. 

The Board has considered the Veteran's statements that he has experienced "razor bumps" since service for which he grew out his beard and avoids shaving. The Board acknowledges that lay evidence concerning continuity of symptoms after service, if credible, is ultimately competent, regardless of the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

A veteran is competent to report observable symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses.  Layno, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). In the present case, the Board finds the Veteran's statements about the chronicity of PFB to be credible, as they are consistent with the medical and other competent evidence of record. The Board also finds him competent to report symptomatology such as a skin rash and bumps, which is readily observable to laypersons.

Based on a review of the evidence, service connection for PFB is warranted. Such a disorder was demonstrated within the STRs, resulting in a shaving profile, and he has provided both credible and competent testimony regarding the continuity of his PFB symptomatology since service separation. Therefore, the appeal is granted.

Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not ?required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record).

 

 

L. HOWELL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Y. Asfaw, 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.