DIABETES MELLITUS
JENNA BRANT · 2026 · Case ID: A26040897
Summary
The veteran, who served from April 2020 to May 2024, appeals the denial of service connection for hypothyroidism. The rating decision under review was issued in April 2025, and the veteran elected the Direct Review docket, limiting the Board's review to evidence of record at that time. The Board found no evidence of a current diagnosis of hypothyroidism, nor any indication of such a diagnosis during the pendency of the claim or recently prior to filing. While service treatment records from May 2023 noted a potential diagnosis of hyperthyroidism based on lab results, the Veteran denied symptoms, and repeat testing was recommended. A subsequent January 2024 record indicated completely normal thyroid functions. A February 2025 VA examination confirmed symptoms like cold intolerance and weight gain but found no diagnosis of hyperthyroidism, nor did any treatment records contain a diagnosis of hypothyroidism. The Board gave more weight to the competent medical evidence, finding the Veteran not competent to provide a medical diagnosis. Therefore, service connection for hypothyroidism was denied as the criteria were not met.
Rationale
No current diagnosis of hypothyroidism found.; Service treatment records did not confirm hypothyroidism.; Veteran's lay testimony regarding diagnosis is not competent.
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26040897 Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26 DOCKET NO. 250410-537673 DATE: April 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had hypothyroidism at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 2020 to May 2024. The rating decision on appeal was issued in April 2025. In the April 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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 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. Entitlement to service connection for hypothyroidism is denied. The Veteran contends that they have hypothyroidism attributable to, or incurred in, service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of hypothyroidism and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). A November 2021 service treatment record documents the Veteran's report of having gained 20 pounds despite diet and exercise. It was noted that the Veteran had been prescribed medications that could be contributing to their weight gain, but a previous history of a thyroid disorder was denied. A May 2023 service treatment record purports to diagnose hyperthyroidism based on laboratory results. However, the Veteran denied any hyperthyroid symptoms, and it was recommended that the Veteran be sent for repeat laboratory testing. A January 2024 service treatment record documents that the Veteran had "rockstar" laboratory results and that their thyroid functions were completely normal. The February 2025 VA examiner determined that, while the Veteran experienced symptoms of cold intolerance, fatigue, severe weight gain and brittle nails, the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of hyperthyroidism. Further, no treatment records contain a diagnosis of hyperthyroidism. While the Veteran believes there is a current diagnosis of hypothyroidism, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education, knowledge of pathology and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. that their thyroid functions were completely normal. The February 2025 VA examiner determined that, while the Veteran experienced symptoms of cold intolerance, fatigue, severe weight gain and brittle nails, the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of hyperthyroidism. Further, no treatment records contain a diagnosis of hyperthyroidism. While the Veteran believes there is a current diagnosis of hypothyroidism, the Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education, knowledge of pathology and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. Jenna Brant Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Joseph R. Keselyak, 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. § 20.1303.