Citation Nr: 18155790 Decision Date: 12/06/18 Archive Date: 12/06/18 DOCKET NO. 16-60 590 DATE: December 6, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for herpes zoster (shingles) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of shingles or residuals thereof. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for shingles have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 2010 to July 2014. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that additional VA treatment records were received following the last adjudication by the RO in the April 2016 statement of the case (SOC). The Board has reviewed these records and observes that they are not pertinent to the issue of service connection for shingles in the decision below. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to establish entitlement to service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal connection between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Lay evidence presented by a Veteran concerning continuity of symptoms after service may not be deemed to lack credibility solely because of a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006). The Board has the authority to discount the weight and probity of evidence in light of its own inherent characteristics and its relationship to other evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. Masors v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 181 (1992); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614 (1992); Hatlestad v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 164 (1991); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; every item of evidence does not have the same probative value. The Board must determine whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either case, or whether the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case, service connection must be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 1. Entitlement to service connection for skin condition, claimed as shingles. The Veteran asserts entitlement to service connection for shingles. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that he was diagnosed and treated for shingles during service. A review of the service treatment records (STRs) shows that in July 2010, the Veteran had a positive varicella zoster virus serum test. In January 2013, the Veteran was diagnosed with herpes zoster. Another January 2013 STR shows the Veteran reported that he first noticed itching on the right side of his chest. Currently, the Veteran reported that his rash had gone down and did not itch or burn as much. He was continued on medication. In April 2013, the Veteran complained of a rash on his arms and reported being exposed to poison oak. He was assessed with contact dermatitis. The Veteran’s April 2014 separation examination shows the Veteran denied any skin diseases. Post-service medical records show that in January 2015, the Veteran reported no persistent skin rash. The Veteran underwent a VA general examination in June 2015. The examiner noted no current skin or scar condition. Since filing his claim in February 2016, the Veteran underwent a VA skin examination in October 2016. The Veteran was diagnosed with herpes zoster of the right chest wall which was treated in January 2013 with medication. No other current skin condition was diagnosed. The examiner further noted that the in-service shingles condition had completely resolved. The examiner also noted the Veteran had a positive immunity for varicella noted in the STRs and that the separation examination was silent as to any current or chronic skin condition. As the treated and resolved skin condition was found completely resolved, the examiner opined that it was “less likely than not (less than 50% probability)” that a skin condition was etiologically related to service. A necessary element for establishing entitlement to service connection is the existence of a current disability; it is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1997). For VA purposes, a current disability exists when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim is filed or at some point during the pendency of that claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007) (holding that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a Veteran has a disability at the time he/she files his claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim). Here, the Veteran has consistently claimed entitlement to service connection for shingles. While the evidence of record does show in-service treatment for that condition, it does not show a current diagnosis or continued treatment. Accordingly, absent evidence showing a current diagnosis or treatment for shingles, the second Shedden requirement has not been met. Therefore, the probative evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection. Although the Veteran is entitled to the benefit-of-the-doubt where the evidence is in approximate balance, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is inapplicable where, as here, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection. The claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Lamb, Associate Counsel