Citation Nr: 18156906 Decision Date: 12/11/18 Archive Date: 12/11/18 DOCKET NO. 15-14 817 DATE: December 11, 2018 ORDER New and material evidence having been received, the previously and finally denied service connection claim for pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB) is reopened. Service connection for PFB is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In January 1995, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a rating decision that denied entitlement to service connection for PFB, and notified the Veteran accordingly. He did not file a notice of disagreement (NOD) or submit new and material evidence within one year. 2. New and material evidence has been received since the January 1995 rating decision to reopen the service connection claim for PFB. 3. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the evidence is at least in equipoise that his current PFB was incurred in and is related to his PFB diagnosed during his first period of active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The January 1995 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 20.302. 2. The criteria for service connection for PFB have been met. U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1990 to January 1994 with the U.S. Navy and from October 2005 through June 2006 with the U.S. Army. He testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a December 2018 video conference hearing. A transcript of that proceeding is not yet of record because the Board has processed this appeal through the “One Touch” Program. However, this does not prejudice the Veteran in any way because the following decision is a full grant of the benefits sought on appeal. The hearing transcript will still be processed and associated with the claims file in the ordinary course of business. The Board has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran’s VA files. In every decision, the Board must provide a statement of the reasons or bases for its determination, adequate to enable an appellant to understand the precise basis for the Board’s decision, as well as to facilitate review by the Court. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1); see Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517, 527 (1995). Although the entire record must be reviewed by the Board, the Court has repeatedly found that the Board is not required to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143, 149 (2001) (rejecting the notion that the Veterans Claims Assistance Act mandates that the Board discuss all evidence). Rather, the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the appellant. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. The appellant must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See id. Pertinent regulations for consideration were provided to the Veteran in the March 2015 Statement of the Case (SOC) and will not be repeated here in full. The previously and finally denied service connection claim for PFB is reopened and granted on the merits for the following reasons. Petition to Reopen In January 1995, the AOJ denied entitlement to service connection for PFB and notified the Veteran accordingly. The January 1995 rating decision reasoned in part that there were no complaints or treatment of PFB after references to this condition in 1992 service treatment records. He did not file an NOD or submit new and material evidence within one year, and the 1995 rating decision became final. The Board finds that new and material evidence has been received since the 1995 rating decision, and therefore, the claim is reopened. New and material evidence need not be received as to each previously unproven element of a claim to justify reopening thereof; the threshold for determining whether new and material evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating a claim is “low.” Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117-120 (2010). In determining whether newly-received evidence is new and material, the credibility of the evidence is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). Newly submitted evidence may be material if it provides a more complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the origin of the Veteran’s disability. See Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, since the 1995 rating decision, VA has received competent and presumptively credible lay statements providing additional details about the onset of PFB during service, continuity of symptomatology since service, and current PFB symptoms. See, e.g., 2018 Board hearing testimony; March 2015 VA Form 9; September 2013 NOD; September 2012 claim form. This evidence raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. As this evidence was not previously submitted to agency decision makers and relates to unestablished facts necessary to substantiate the claim, it is new and material. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Therefore, the claim is reopened. As discussed further below, the claim is also granted on the merits. Service Connection The Veteran seeks service connection for PFB. He contends that his current PFB began during his active Navy service in 1990 during basic training and that his PFB symptoms have continued through the present. After a full review of the record, the Board finds the evidence is at least in equipoise that he currently has PFB and that this condition began during and is etiologically related to service. Initially, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current PFB disability based on his competent and credible reports of current, ongoing PFB symptoms. See, e.g., 2018 Board hearing testimony; March 2015 VA Form 9; September 2013 NOD; September 2012 claim form. Moreover, service treatment records show complaints, treatment, and diagnoses of PFB during his first period of active service with the Navy. See January 1990, April 1992, July 1992 service treatment records. The Board affords great probative value to his competent and credible lay statements describing PFB symptoms during his first period of active service in the early 1990s, his management of PFB symptoms with a shaving profile during his second period of active service in the mid-2000s, and continuity of symptoms through the present. See, e.g., 2018 Board hearing testimony; March 2015 VA Form 9; September 2013 NOD; September 2012 claim form. He consistently and credibly explained that during his second period of active service, he saw no reason to complain of or seek treatment for his ongoing PFB symptoms because he was told that the condition was untreatable other than abstaining from shaving, which the Army permitted him to do. Finally, the Board takes judicial notice of the fact the PFB is a chronic, inflammatory condition that lasts for life. See Brauner, Gary J., M.D., “Dermatology Education, Pseudofolliculitis barbae,” available at http://skinofcolorsociety.org/dermatology-education/1408-2/. The Veteran is competent to describe observable skin symptoms and presented evidence of such during the hearing before the undersigned. In conclusion, affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, service connection for PFB is granted. MICHELLE L. KANE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD R. Janofsky, Associate Counsel