Citation Nr: 18156249 Decision Date: 12/07/18 Archive Date: 12/07/18 DOCKET NO. 16-26 280 DATE: December 7, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his current pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) is related to his in-service diagnosis of this condition. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1986 to August 1990. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Travel Board hearing at the Waco, Texas RO in November 2018. This decision is being issued under the Board’s “one-touch” decision initiative; a transcript of this hearing will be added to the Veteran’s file in the ordinary course of business. Entitlement to service connection pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB). Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Here, the Veteran contends that he currently suffers from PFB that is related to his active service. For the reasons that follow, his claim shall be granted. First, both VA and private treatment records clearly demonstrate that the Veteran has been diagnosed as suffering from PFB. Thus, the first element of service connection has been met. As to the second element for direct service connection, in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, review of the Veteran’s service treatment records revealed that the Veteran was treated in June/July1987 and September 1989 for complications with shaving to specifically include PFB or shaving bumps. Therefore, the second element of service connection has been met as well. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran’s current PFB is related to his inservice complaints of PFB and shaving bumps. The Board finds that the evidence is in at least equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s PFB is related to service. Both at his hearing and in letters to VA, the Veteran reported that he did not shave before entering the military and his PFB first manifested during his service. He also stated that his condition has been continuous since its onset in service. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in June 2014 and October 2014 to determine the etiology and nature of his claimed PFB. Both VA examiners opined that the Veteran’s current PFB was due to the character of the Veteran’s hair, which was identified as coarse and curly. Moreover, the examiners provided that PFB is more likely to occur with individuals of African, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern descent. Therefore, the examiners did not find a connection between the Veteran’s in-service occurrences of shaving complications (PFB and shaving bumps) and his current PFB. Though these opinions were comprehensive, the Board does not find them to be adequate. Notably, much of the examiners’ rationale ignored the Veteran’s onset of PFB in-service and focused predominately of the risk factors of PFB and not the specifics of the Veteran’s case. Thus, the June and October 2014 VA examinations are adequate for rating purposes due to the disregard for the Veteran’s statements and documented in-service occurrence of PFB. In the end, the Board is left with the Veteran’s credible and competent assertion of PFB in service and symptoms continuing thereafter. His service treatment records corroborate his contentions. Under these circumstances, the Board finds it most prudent to resolve all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor and find that his current PFB is either related to or had its onset during his active service. Again, the Board acknowledges the earlier June and October 2014 opinions found the opposite. In light, however, of the evidence of record, the Board simply cannot afford those opinions probative value. (Continued on next page) As such, the benefit of the doubt is resolved in the Veteran's favor, and entitlement to service connection for PFB must be granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. R. Higgins, Associate Counsel