FLATFOOT UNILATERAL ACQUIRED

Summary

The veteran, who served honorably in the U.S. Army from November 2015 to July 2020, appeals the denial of a compensable disability rating for pes planus of the left foot. The claim for an increased rating was received on July 3, 2025. The VA scheduled an in-person examination for July 14, 2025, to assess the severity of the pes planus, as the existing evidence was insufficient to rate the condition. The veteran did not attend the scheduled examination and did not provide good cause for the failure to appear. The Board noted that the veteran's NOD was received in July 2025, and while older decisions were mentioned, only the July 2025 rating decision for pes planus was timely on appeal. The Board cited 38 C.F.R. § 3.655, which mandates denial of a claim for increased rating when a claimant fails to report for a necessary examination without good cause. The Board found no indication the veteran received notice of the examination, nor did the veteran provide an argument for a higher rating in the absence of a supporting medical assessment. Consequently, the Board denied the claim for an increased rating for pes planus of the left foot due to the failure to attend the scheduled VA examination.

Rationale

Failure to attend scheduled VA examination; No good cause provided for failure to appear; Claim denied per 38 C.F.R. § 3.655

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040300
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 250722-565601
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to a compensable disability rating for pes planus of the left foot is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The appellant's claim for an increased rating for pes planus of the left foot was received on July 3, 2025.

2. Additional travel was approved by the appellant beyond contractual mileage through the Veteran Portal on July 6, 2025.  

3. On July 8, 2025, the appellant was notified that he was scheduled for an in-person examination associated with his claim to take place on July 14, 2025, which was necessary to necessary to assess the extent to which the severity of the appellant's pes planus disability had increased.   

4. The appellant did not attend his scheduled VA examination of his claim and did not request rescheduling of the examination or provide a statement of good cause for failure to appear at the examination.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

As the appellant failed to report for a necessary examination scheduled in conjunction with a claim for an increased disability rating without good cause, the appellant's claim shall be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 501; 38 C.F.R. § 3.655.  

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The appellant served honorably in the United States Army on active duty from November 2015 to July 2020.  

The appellant received many decorations, medals, badges, citations, and campaign ribbons including (but not limited to) the (1) Army Achievement Medal, the (2) Meritorious Unit Commendation, the (3) Army Good Conduct Medal, the (4) National Defense Service Medal, the (5) Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the (6) Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the (7) Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, the (8) Army Service Ribbon, the (9) Overseas Service Ribbon, the (10) North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Medal, and the (11) Driver and Mechanic Badge.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Veterans Benefits Administration (the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ)) in the modernized review system.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400.  The appellant's notice of disagreement (NOD) was submitted by the appellant without representation and was received in July 2025.  It is liberally construed as a timely NOD with the July 2025 rating decision.  The appellant elected to appeal to the Board on the Evidence Submission Docket, and evidence in the form of an additional supporting lay statement from the appellant was received during the evidentiary window on August 7, 2025.  The submission of additional evidence precludes the appellant from switching dockets.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(c)(2).

While the NOD lists some older rating decisions from July 2020 and March 2024 pertaining to left foot pes planus ratings and a claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), such rating decisions are dated more than one year prior to the date of the receipt of the NOD and are ineligible for appeal under VA's claims processing rules in the absence of a statement of good cause for late filing or other compelling evidence of good cause in the record.  See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 20.203.  Therefore, the only issue on appeal at this time is the appellant's appeal for a compensable rating decision for pes planus under the July 2025 rating decision.

Applicable Evidentiary Windows

The Board may only consider the evidence of record before the AOJ at the time of its decision on the issue on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative with the NOD (VA Form 10182) or within 90 days following receipt of the NOD.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300(a), 20.303.  If additional evidence was submitted between the dates of the AOJ decision and VA's receipt of the NOD, the Board will not consider it unless it is resubmitted during the 90 days following VA's receipt of the NOD.  If the appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, the appellant may file a supplemental claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this
 well as any evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative with the NOD (VA Form 10182) or within 90 days following receipt of the NOD.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300(a), 20.303.  If additional evidence was submitted between the dates of the AOJ decision and VA's receipt of the NOD, the Board will not consider it unless it is resubmitted during the 90 days following VA's receipt of the NOD.  If the appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, the appellant 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included with this decision.  See also Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023).

Applicable Legal Criteria

38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a) provides that when entitlement or continued entitlement to a benefit cannot be established or confirmed 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 paragraph (b) or (c) of this section as appropriate.  Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, the illness or hospitalization of the claimant, death of an immediate family member, etc.  For purposes of this section, the terms examination and reexamination include periods of hospital observation when required by VA.

38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) provides that 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.  Furthermore, it provides that when the examination was scheduled in conjunction with any other original claim, a supplemental claim for a benefit which was previously disallowed, or a claim for increase, the claim shall be denied.

Analysis

The appellant's claim for an increased rating for pes planus of the left foot was received on July 3, 2025.  Additional travel was approved by the appellant beyond contractual mileage through the Veteran Portal on July 6, 2025.  On July 8, 2025, the appellant was notified that he was scheduled for an in-person examination associated with his claim to take place on July 14, 2025, which was necessary to assess the extent to which the severity of the appellant's pes planus disability had increased.  The examination is still necessary to address the specific requirements of the applicable rating criteria under applicable standards of the law in the absence of alternative bases to establish such criteria (e.g. through a combination of medical records and lay statements relating to the rating period that adequately addresses the pertinent rating criteria under applicable standards).  See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a.  There is a lack of substantial treatment records and other evidence (e.g. lay statements) in the evidentiary record relating to the rating period that is responsive to pertinent rating criteria that would allow the adjudicator to adequately rate the severity of the appellant's disability according to applicable law.  The appellant did not contend that he did not receive notice of the VA examination, and there are no indications in the claims file that he did not receive notice.  Moreover, the appellant has not presented an argument on appeal identifying a clear basis to assign a specific higher rating under applicable rating criteria in the absence of a supporting medical assessment or other compelling evidence in the record.  

Ultimately, the appellant did not attend a necessary scheduled VA examination of his claim and did not request rescheduling of the examination or provide a statement of good cause for failure to appear at the examination according to documentation received into the claims file on July 21, 2025.  In August 2025, the AOJ received a new application for an increased rating for pes planus of the left foot, which the AOJ is processing.  Regarding the slightly older claim on appeal, as the appellant failed to report for a necessary examination scheduled in conjunction with a claim for an increased disability rating without good cause, the appellant's claim shall be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 501; 38 C.F.R. § 3.655.  

 

K.A. KENNERLY

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Michael Duffy, Counsel

The decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not
, the AOJ received a new application for an increased rating for pes planus of the left foot, which the AOJ is processing.  Regarding the slightly older claim on appeal, as the appellant failed to report for a necessary examination scheduled in conjunction with a claim for an increased disability rating without good cause, the appellant's claim shall be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 501; 38 C.F.R. § 3.655.  

 

K.A. KENNERLY

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Michael Duffy, Counsel

The 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.