Citation Nr: 18140340 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-10 734 DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The weight of evidence shows that the Veteran’s current pseudofolliculitis barbae had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty for training from June 1983 to September 1983 with additional service in the reserves and National Guard. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, service connection requires (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Active military service includes any period of active duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty, or any period of inactive duty training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(21) and (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a) and (d). It follows that service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated while performing active duty for training (ACDUTRA), or from injury (but not diseases) incurred or aggravated while performing inactive duty training (IDT). 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 106, 1131. Generally, no presumptions (including for diseases) attach to periods of ACDUTRA or IDT unless “Veteran” status is attained during those periods. Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 466, 470 (1995). Even for Veterans who have achieved “Veteran” status through a prior period of active service and now claim a disability incurred only during a later period of ACDUTRA, the presumption of soundness applies only when the Veteran has been “examined, accepted, and enrolled for service” and where that examination revealed no “defects, infirmities, or disorders.” Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40, 45-46 (2010). In other words, there must be an entrance examination prior to the period of ACDUTRA (or IDT) in which the Veteran claims the disease or injury occurred; otherwise, the presumption of soundness does not attach. Smith, 24 Vet. App. at 45-46. Moreover, if the claimant has not achieved “Veteran” status through a prior period of service, then the presumption of soundness does not attach to a period of ACDUTRA (or IDT), no matter if an examination occurred prior to the period of ACDUTRA (or IDT). Id. Analysis The Veteran contends that his pseudofolliculitis barbae is due to military service. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of pseudofolliculitis barbae. As such, element one under Shedden is met. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) do not document complaints, treatments, or diagnosis of pseudofolliculitis barbae. During his April 1985: Airforce Reserve Enlistment exam; October 1988 Report of Medical Examination: Periodic exam, the Veteran’s head, face, neck, and scalp were normal. The Veteran noted that he did not have a skin disease. Neither the examiner nor the Veteran noted a skin condition. In an August 2012 statement, the Veteran stated that during basic training, he noticed a certain amount of itchiness, soreness, and what appeared to be a type of rash below his jaw and upper neck area. At the time, he did not consider his condition to be severe, so he did not complain and continued with his training as the environment was not one that was conducive to excuses or complaints. He further stated that anyone with issues could go to sick call, but he wanted to complete his training without being behind and washed out. He stated that he has continued to have the issues with his skin disorder. In August 2012, the Veteran’s mother submitted a statement. Before joining, the Veteran only trimmed his facial hair with clippers; he had never shaved his face with razors. When the Veteran returned home from basic training, his mother noticed some irritation and bumps under his chin and neck area. When asked about the bumps and irritation, the Veteran stated that it came from shaving during basic training. In October 2012, the Veteran had a follow up appointment for folliculitis. The examiner stated that since the last visit, the Veteran’s condition continued to improve. The Veteran asked if his condition was related to military service. He stated that if he was not in the military, he would have never started shaving and would have never gotten folliculitis. The examiner stated that folliculitis is very common among African American men or bearded men with shaving, and the Veteran would have likely had folliculitis even if he did not start to shave. The Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s pseudofolliculitis barbae is related to his military service. The Board notes that the October 2012 examiner concluded that the Veteran would have likely had folliculitis even if he did not start to shave. However, the Board finds that the Veteran’s reports and his mother’s statement as to his pseudofolliculitis barbae during service and since service to be credible. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007) (holding that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when a lay person is competent to identify the medical condition, or reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or the lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional). Here, the Board finds no reason to doubt the Veteran’s reports that he first experienced pseudofolliculitis barbae symptoms during active service, and it has continued since service. Thus, given the Veteran’s competent and credible evidence as to the symptoms that have occurred upon shaving since the time of his active military service, there is sufficient evidence to find that his pseudofolliculitis barbae manifested in, or is otherwise etiologically related to, his active military service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). Therefore, notwithstanding the negative opinion, there is at least an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to whether the Veteran’s pseudofolliculitis barbae was caused by his active duty service. As the positive and negative evidence of record is at least in relative equipoise, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule applies, and service connection for the Veteran’s pseudofolliculitis barbae is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. REASONS FOR REMAND In his May 2018 Appellate Brief, the Veteran, through his representative, stated that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss had gotten worse. The representative stated that the Veteran was previously afforded a VA audiological examination in 2014 and that examination was too old exam and not adequate to determine the current severity of the Veteran’s hearing loss. Considering the Veteran’s claim of increased severity of his hearing loss, the Board finds that a remand is warranted for a new VA audiological examination. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate all outstanding VA and private treatment records with the claims file. 2. Contact the Veteran and request that he identify all private providers who have treated him for his bilateral hearing loss. After obtaining authorization, obtain all outstanding, non-duplicative records. If the records are unavailable, document the claims file and notify the Veteran in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 3. Schedule the Veteran for a VA audiological examination to determine the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss. The claims folder must be provided to the examiner for review. The examiner should perform all tests and studies deemed necessary, to include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a puretone audiometry test. The examiner should fully describe the impact of the disability on the Veteran’s occupational and social functioning. The examination report must include a complete rationale for all opinions expressed. 3. Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and afford them the opportunity to respond before the file is returned to the Board for further consideration. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Henry, Associate Counsel