Citation Nr: 18140157 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 17-56 468 DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER Service connection for allergic rhinitis is granted. Service connection for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is granted. Service connection for onychomycosis, claimed as a bilateral foot fungus, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s allergic rhinitis had its onset in service. 2. The Veteran’s OSA had its onset in service. 3. The Veteran’s onychomycosis had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for allergic rhinitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for OSA have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). 3. The criteria for service connection for onychomycosis have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 2011 to October 2011 and from November 2014 to November 2015. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions dated in January 2017 and June 2017 issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2018, the Veteran participated in an informal conference with a Decision Review Officer. A summary of the conference is associated with the record. The Board notes that, following the issuance of the most recent statement of the case in October 2017, additional evidence, to include VA examination reports were associated with the file without a waiver of Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) consideration. However, as these claims are being granted, no prejudice results to the Veteran in the Board considering such evidence for the purpose of awarding benefits. Additionally, the Board notes that there are Spanish language documents of record that have not been translated. However, as this decision represents a full grant of benefits sought on appeal, there is no prejudice in proceeding with adjudication of the claim without seeking a translation of such documents. Service Connection The Veteran contends he has allergic rhinitis, OSA, and onychomycosis that all had their onset during his active service. In this regard, the Veteran reported he first experienced the symptoms of allergic rhinitis in service. Additionally, he reported that he was told he snored a lot in service and shortly after, with some instances of waking up choking, and he had sleep trouble while in service. Finally, he reported that he first noticed his toenails were changing color while he was deployed. After a review of the record, and resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that his disorders all had their onset in service, therefore, service connection is warranted for such disorders. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease 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). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff’d, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). 1. Service connection for allergic rhinitis. 2. Service connection for OSA. 3. Service connection for onychomycosis. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis for each disorder on appeal. Namely, he has diagnoses of allergic rhinitis and OSA from a February 2018 VA examination, and he has a diagnosis of onychomycosis from an April 2017 VA examination. Thus, for service connection to be granted, the record must reflect that such disorders either had their onset in service or are otherwise related to service. In this regard, the Veteran underwent VA examinations for his OSA in May 2016, January 2017, and February 2018. The May 2016 examiner found no diagnosis referable to OSA, and thus provided no etiological opinion. Conversely however, the latter two examinations both noted a diagnosis of OSA from a May 2016 sleep study, which occurred after the May 2016 VA examination. Further, both the January 2017 and February 2018 VA examiners opined that the Veteran’s OSA is related to his service. Specifically, the January 2017 examiner noted the reports of the Veteran’s snoring from his wife and roommate during service, that he has a diagnosis of OSA, he reported symptoms since service, that he was diagnosed within a year of separation from duty, and then the examiner opined therefore, that OSA is likely related to military service. Similarly, the February 2018 VA examiner opined OSA was at least as likely as not related to service because he reported his symptoms manifested in-service, he reported trouble sleeping on his post deployment assessment, and he was diagnosed within a year of service. Additionally, with regard to his allergic rhinitis, the Veteran underwent VA examinations in April 2017 and February 2018. Notably, the April 2017 VA examiner only noted a diagnosis without providing an etiological opinion. In contrast, the February 2018 VA examiner, after noting the Veteran’s diagnosis and history, opined that the allergic rhinitis was at least as likely as not related to service as he complained of manifestations in service, has had continuing treatment, and was diagnosed within a year. The Board finds the foregoing opinions highly probative regarding the etiology and onset of the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis and OSA. In this regard, the opinion proffered considered all the pertinent evidence of record, to include the Veteran’s statements and the medical evidence of record, and provided a complete rationale, relying on and citing to the records reviewed. Moreover, the examiner offered clear conclusions with supporting data as well as reasoned medical explanations connecting the two. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) (“[A]medical opinion... must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions”). Moreover, the Board notes that it is prohibited from developing additional evidence for the purpose of obtaining evidence against a claimant’s case. See Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305 (2003). Notably, there is no conflicting medical evidence or opinion of record regarding the onset and etiology of such disorders. Furthermore, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements highly probative. Specifically, the Board notes the Veteran is competent to describe to describe the observable symptoms of allergic rhinitis, including when they began, as well as to relay the reports of his snoring, and he is competent to report having sleeping troubles and hypersomnolence. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Further, the Board has no reason to doubt the veracity of such statements, particularly considering the medical evidence of record supports such statements. Thus, his statements regarding the onset of his symptoms are highly probative. In this regard, the Board also finds his statements concerning the onset of his onychomycosis very probative. Importantly, the Veteran is again competent to describe the moment when he noticed his toenails were changing in color, as such is an observable symptom. Id. Further, although he is not competent to provide a diagnosis based on such observable symptoms, the immediacy of the diagnosis after his separation from service based on such observable symptoms also weighs heavily in the Veteran’s favor. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007). In this regard, the Veteran was first treated for such fungal infection in a December 2015 VA treatment record, less than a month after he separated from service. Thus, the Board finds the extremely close temporal relationship of the Veteran’s service and the diagnosis of onychomycosis sufficiently support the credibility of his reports that he first noticed the changing color of his toenails while deployed. (Continued on the next page)   Consequently, resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis, OSA, and onychomycosis all had their onset in active service. Accordingly, service connection for such disorders is warranted. 38 U.S.C. 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra. KRISTY L. ZADORA Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Jonathan M. Estes, Associate Counsel