Citation Nr: 18143781 Decision Date: 10/22/18 Archive Date: 10/22/18 DOCKET NO. 16-29 019 DATE: October 22, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a sinus condition is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of pseudofolliculitis barbae. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1971 to March 1975 and from November 1975 to November 1980. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from February 2015 and April 2016 rating decisions by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in- service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae. In January 2015 the Veteran was afforded a VA examination for skin disease, to include pseudofolliculitis barbae. The examiner noted the Veteran developed shaving bumps during boot camp. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran does not have a current skin disease and has not been treated for a skin disease in the prior 12 months. The examiner opined that the Veteran had pseudofolliculitis barbae in service but was now symptom free of any type of skin condition. Significantly, there is no medical evidence of record showing evidence of a disability at any time during the pendency of the appeal, nor has the Veteran asserted that the skin disorder has been present at any time during this appeal. VA treatment records do not reflect ongoing treatment for pseudofolliculitis barbae or a related skin condition. Accordingly, the Board finds the first Shedden element, evidence of a current disability, has not been met in the claim of service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae. Based on the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for pseudofolliculitis barbae. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); see also Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143-44 (1992). Absent competent medical evidence indicating a current diagnosis for pseudofolliculitis barbae, the Board concludes that the claim of entitlement to service connection must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran was last afforded a VA examination of his bilateral hearing loss disability in January 2015. In a June 2016 correspondence, the Veteran indicated that his hearing loss has worsened. In light of this, the Board finds that a new VA examination is necessary to clarify the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a sinus condition due to exposure to chemicals and fumes during service. In January 2016, the Veteran was afforded an examination for a sinus condition. The examiner noted there was evidence of the Veteran being treated for a sinus condition in 1978 during service. The Veteran reported to the examiner he now experiences sinus drainage and pressure. The examiner opined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis for any nose, throat, larynx or pharynx condition. Pursuant to Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), the issue on appeal includes not only a sinus condition but also other diagnoses related to the Veteran’s symptoms. The examiner reported the Veteran reports sinus drainage and pressure, but did not provide a rationale for the finding the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis related to these symptoms. Accordingly, a new examination is required to assess whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis related to his sinus drainage and pressure, and if there is a current diagnosis if it is etiologically related to service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should contact the Veteran and request his assistance in identifying any outstanding relevant records. The AOJ should make reasonable attempts to obtain all identified outstanding records and associate them with the Veteran’s claims file. 2. After associating all outstanding relevant records with the Veteran’s claims file, the AOJ should afford the Veteran an examination to assess the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss disability. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current nasal or sinus disability. The claims folder, including a copy of this remand, must be made available to the examiner, and the examiner must review the entire claims file in conjunction with the examination. All tests and studies deemed necessary should be conducted. (a.) Identify any currently diagnosed nasal or sinus disability(s) at any time during the appeal period, to include a condition manifested by chronic sinus drainage and pressure. (b.) Identify whether any currently diagnosed nasal or sinus disability is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) etiologically related to the Veteran’s active duty service, to include his reported exposure to chemicals and fumes. The examiner should consider and discuss the Veteran’s subjective history as well as the pertinent medical evidence of record. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed and all contradictory evidence must be addressed. If the requested opinions cannot be made without resort to speculation, the examiner must state this and specifically explain why an opinion cannot be provided without resort to speculation. 4. After completing the above action and any other necessary development, readjudicate the claim. If a claim remains denied, a Supplemental Statement of the Case must be provided to the Veteran. After the Veteran has had adequate opportunity to respond, the appeal must be returned to the Board for appellate review. MICHAEL LANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Keogh, Associate Counsel