Case A26040612

Summary

The veteran, who served from September 1965 to May 1966, appeals a VA rating decision concerning several claimed conditions. The Board granted service connection for a psychiatric disability, finding it related to service due to a corroborated in-service incident where the veteran was dropped in the ocean during severe weather, leading to nightmares and a diagnosis of other specified trauma and stressor related disorder. The Board also granted service connection for bilateral hearing loss, finding it related to in-service noise exposure from gunfire while at sea, despite the VA examiner's negative opinion which failed to address the veteran's lay statements. The Board afforded greater probative value to the veteran's credible lay testimony regarding both the psychiatric condition and hearing loss. Service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis was dismissed as moot, as it had already been granted and was no longer on appeal. The Board remanded claims for bilateral flat feet, gum disease (secondary to psychiatric disability), hepatitis C residuals (secondary to psychiatric disability), a left ankle disorder, pyuria (secondary to hepatitis), benign prostatic hypertrophy, diabetes mellitus type II (secondary to psychiatric disability), a heart disorder (due to psychiatric disability), bilateral peripheral neuropathy of the upper extremities, central sleep apnea (secondary to asbestos exposure), ulcer, bilateral lumbar radiculopathy (secondary to left knee degenerative arthritis), and left lower extremity lumbar radiculopathy (secondary to left knee degenerative arthritis). The remand for these conditions was primarily due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error, as the VA had not obtained the veteran's Social Security Administration disability decision and related medical records.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040612
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250925-584128
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for other specified trauma and stressor related disorder (psychiatric disability), claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), substance abuse, and depression, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection to bilateral hearing loss is granted.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for gum disease, to include as secondary to the service-connected psychiatric disability, is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C residuals, claimed as hepatitis A, B, and C, to include as secondary to the service-connected psychiatric disability, is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for pyuria, to include as secondary to hepatitis, is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for benign prostatic hypertrophy is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, to include as secondary to the service-connected psychiatric disability, is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder, to include as due to the service-connected psychiatric disability, is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for central sleep apnea, claimed as obstructive sleep apnea, to include as due to asbestos exposure, is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for ulcer is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity lumbar radiculopathy, secondary to the service-connected left knee degenerative arthritis, is remanded.

Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity lumbar radiculopathy, secondary to the service-connected left knee degenerative arthritis, is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The competent and credible evidence of record persuasively establishes a finding that service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis was granted in a January 2026 rating decision.

2. The competent and credible evidence of record persuasively establishes a finding that the psychiatric disability is related to active-duty service.

3. The competent and credible evidence of record persuasively establishes a finding that the bilateral hearing loss is related to active-duty service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection psychiatric disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection to bilateral hearing loss have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1965 to May 1966. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the September 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held in January 2025. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the October 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 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
38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 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 psychiatric, and hearing loss 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. However, because the Board is remanding the remaining claims, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

1. Entitlement to service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis

The Board granted service connection for left knee degenerative arthritis in an October 2025 decision. The AOJ effectuated this grant in a January 2026 rating decision, with a 10 percent evaluation effective January 21, 2025, the date of his claim. This represents a full grant of the benefits sought, and this issue is no longer in appellate status. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Because there remains no case or controversy to resolve, the appeal for this issue is dismissed as moot. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5).

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (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 - the so-called "nexus" requirement. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

2. Entitlement to service connection for psychiatric disability

The Veteran alleges that psychiatric disability began during service and has existed since that time.

First, the Board finds that there is a current disability. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Veteran underwent a VA telehealth examination in July 2025 where the examiner found no PTSD diagnosis, but did confirm a diagnosis of other specified trauma and stressor related disorder. Accordingly, the first element of service connection is met.  

Second, the Board finds that there was an in-service event, injury or disease. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are silent for any complaints of or treatment for any psychiatric condition. On a March 2019 application for service connection, the Veteran asserted that the condition was due to an emergency basket droppage between ships. In a July 2025 statement, he indicated that there was an incident being transferred from one ship to the other, and that he had nightmares about drowning. At the July 2025 VA examination, the Veteran shared that he injured his left knee during a fall on a ship while at sea, and it was decided that he should be transferred to another ship. During that process, he was dropped in the water due to severe weather conditions, and that his next memory was waking in a hospital. While there, the Veteran reported that he was given papers to sign, which he did not understand, only to later learn that he had agreed to early separation from service due to his knee. He stated that when he returned home, his father cussed him out for leaving service after
 statement, he indicated that there was an incident being transferred from one ship to the other, and that he had nightmares about drowning. At the July 2025 VA examination, the Veteran shared that he injured his left knee during a fall on a ship while at sea, and it was decided that he should be transferred to another ship. During that process, he was dropped in the water due to severe weather conditions, and that his next memory was waking in a hospital. While there, the Veteran reported that he was given papers to sign, which he did not understand, only to later learn that he had agreed to early separation from service due to his knee. He stated that when he returned home, his father cussed him out for leaving service after such a short time.

As indicated above, the Veteran is service-connected for the left knee, and his STRs corroborate that he was prematurely separated due to the condition. The Board finds the Veteran's statements competent as they are capable of lay observation. 38?U.S.C. §?1154(a); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005) (noting that a lay witness is competent to report to factual matters of which he or she has first-hand knowledge). Further, these statements have been corroborated by the STRs and military personnel records. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995) (noting that the probative value of a witness statement may be affected by inconsistency with other evidence), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the second element of service connection is met.

Third, the Board finds that the evidence of record does support a finding that the psychiatric disability is related to active service.  

The July 2025 VA examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the psychiatric disability was related to service. They indicated that the Veteran met the diagnostic criteria for other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, but not PTSD, due to his report of being dropped in the ocean during service. The examiner noted that this incident caused the Veteran to have nightmares, and that he avoids reminders of the event.

The Board affords the July 2025 medical opinion significant probative value as it was conducted by a medical professional with consideration of the Veteran's lay statements, and specific facts in this case, and is supported by well-reasoned rationale. Factors for assessing the probative value of a medical opinion include the thoroughness and detail of the opinion. Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-9 (2000). A medical examination report must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008).

Accordingly, the criteria for the claim of entitlement to service connection for psychiatric disability have been met, and the appeal is granted.

3. Entitlement to service connection to bilateral hearing loss

The Veteran alleges that hearing loss is related to an in-service noise exposure.

First, the Board finds that there is a current disability. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Veteran underwent a VA examination in July 2019 where the examiner confirmed a diagnosis of bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. Accordingly, the first element of service connection is met.  

Second, the Board finds that there was an in-service event, injury or disease. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Veteran's STRs are silent for any complaints of or treatment for hearing loss. On the March 2019 application for service connection, the Veteran asserted that the hearing loss was related to loud gunfire while on a ship without any hearing protection. He repeated this theory of entitlement at the July 2019 VA examination, and that he first noticed problems with his hearing around 2005. The Board finds it reasonable that he would have been exposed to gunfire while at sea. The Board finds the Veteran's statements competent as they are capable of lay observation. 38?U.S.C. §?1154(a); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005) (noting that a lay witness is competent to report to factual matters of which he or she has first-hand knowledge); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995) (noting that the probative value of a witness statement may be affected by inconsistency with other evidence), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604
 hearing around 2005. The Board finds it reasonable that he would have been exposed to gunfire while at sea. The Board finds the Veteran's statements competent as they are capable of lay observation. 38?U.S.C. §?1154(a); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005) (noting that a lay witness is competent to report to factual matters of which he or she has first-hand knowledge); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995) (noting that the probative value of a witness statement may be affected by inconsistency with other evidence), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, the second element of service connection is met.

Third, the Board finds that the evidence of record does support a finding that the hearing loss is related to active service.  

The July 2019 VA examiner provided a negative nexus opinion. They explained that his hearing was within normal limits at enlistment to service, and that there was no further information pertaining to his hearing during active duty service. The examiner noted that most hearing loss develops gradually during middle or old age without any identifiable cause or association other than advancing years. They stressed that the Veteran first noticed his hearing problems approximately 40 years after service.

The Board notes that the examiner neglected to address the Veteran's lay statements regarding the gunfire while at sea. A medical opinion based solely on the absence of documentation in the service treatment records or that fails to take into account lay statements is inadequate. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (VA examiner's opinion inadequate that relied on the absence of contemporaneous medical evidence); see also Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25?Vet. App.?286, 294 (2010); Dalton v. Nicholson, 21?Vet. App.?23, 39 (2007).

Rather than remanding for another opinion, given the Veteran's longstanding competent and credible complaints of hearing loss due to noise exposure during service, the Board will afford his lay statements greater probative value.

Accordingly, the criteria for the claim of entitlement to service connection for bilateral hearing loss have been met, and the appeal is granted.

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet is remanded.

2. Entitlement to service connection for gum disease, to include as secondary to the service-connected psychiatric disability, is remanded.

3. Entitlement to service connection for hepatitis C residuals, to include as secondary to the service-connected psychiatric disability, is remanded.

4. Entitlement to service connection for a left ankle disorder is remanded.

5. Entitlement to service connection for pyuria, to include as secondary to hepatitis, is remanded.

6. Entitlement to service connection for benign prostatic hypertrophy is remanded.

7. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, to include as secondary to the service-connected psychiatric disability, is remanded.

8. Entitlement to service connection for a heart disorder, to include as due to the service-connected psychiatric disability, is remanded.

9. Entitlement to service connection for right upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded.

10. Entitlement to service connection for left upper extremity peripheral neuropathy is remanded.

11. Entitlement to service connection for central sleep apnea, claimed as obstructive sleep apnea, to include as secondary to asbestos exposure, is remanded.

12. Entitlement to service connection for ulcer is remanded.

13. Entitlement to service connection for right lower extremity lumbar radiculopathy, secondary to the service-connected left knee degenerative arthritis, is remanded.

14. Entitlement to service connection for left lower extremity lumbar radiculopathy, secondary to the service-connected left knee degenerative arthritis, is remanded.

The Board notes that a careful review of the VA treatment records finds no current diagnoses for flat feet, gum disease, a left ankle disorder, pyuria, diabetes, or ulcers. VA has obtained negative nexus opinions for the benign prostatic hyperplasia, aortic valve regurgitation, bilateral lumbar radiculopathy, bilateral polyneuropathy of the hands, and central sleep apnea.

However, on a November 2007 application for service connection, the Veteran reported that he is on disability from the Social Security Administration (SSA). VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim, which includes making as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from a Federal department or agency, including, but not limited to, records from Federal agencies such as the SSA.  38 C
 disease, a left ankle disorder, pyuria, diabetes, or ulcers. VA has obtained negative nexus opinions for the benign prostatic hyperplasia, aortic valve regurgitation, bilateral lumbar radiculopathy, bilateral polyneuropathy of the hands, and central sleep apnea.

However, on a November 2007 application for service connection, the Veteran reported that he is on disability from the Social Security Administration (SSA). VA has a duty to assist claimants to obtain evidence needed to substantiate a claim, which includes making as many requests as are necessary to obtain relevant records from a Federal department or agency, including, but not limited to, records from Federal agencies such as the SSA.  38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(2). The record does not indicate that the AOJ has made any attempts to obtain these records. Accordingly, a pre-decisional duty to assist error has been identified, and remand is required.

By this remand the Board makes no determination, expressed or implied, concerning the credibility of any statements on file.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Contact the SSA and obtain a copy of that agency's decision concerning the Veteran's claim for disability benefits, including any medical records used to make the decision. If any requested records are not available, or the search for any such records otherwise yields negative results, that fact must clearly be documented in the claims file. Efforts to obtain these records must continue until it is determined that they do not exist or that further attempts to obtain them would be futile. The non-existence or unavailability of such records must be verified and this should be documented for the record. Required notice must be provided to the Veteran and his or her representative.

 

 

Thomas L. English

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Rogos, J.

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.