Citation Nr: 18160829 Decision Date: 12/27/18 Archive Date: 12/27/18 DOCKET NO. 16-58 531A DATE: December 27, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for seborrheic dermatitis with pseudofolliculitis barbae is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s seborrheic dermatitis did not have onset during service or within one year of service discharge, and is not otherwise related to service. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of pseudofolliculitis barbae. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for seborrheic dermatitis with pseudofolliculitis barbae have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the Army from June 1980 to September 1982. The Board notes that VA treatment records have been added to the Veteran’s file after the issuance of the statement of the case (SOC). However, as these records merely confirm a diagnosis of seborrheic dermatitis that was previously acknowledged at the time of the issuance of the SOC, no waiver is required. The Veteran declined a hearing in this case. Service Connection—Generally Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The Board has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in the Veteran’s claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, each piece of evidence of record. The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, regarding the Veteran’s claim on appeal. The Veteran must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). 1. Entitlement to service connection for seborrheic dermatitis with pseudofolliculitis barbae The Veteran claims that he has seborrheic dermatitis with pseudofolliculitis barbae, and that this condition is related to shaving requirements during service. As to a current disability, the Veteran was diagnosed with seborrheic dermatitis in October 2013. Thus, the Veteran meets the first element of a claim for service connection for seborrheic dermatitis only. The Veteran has not been shown to have a current diagnosis of pseudofolliculitis barbae. As to an in-service disease or injury, April 1982 service treatment records document that the Veteran suffered from pseudofolliculitis barbae noted as “PFB” and “shaving bumps” during service. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence of record, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s current diagnosis of seborrheic dermatitis is related to the pseudofolliculitis barbae that he experienced during service. The reasons follow. The Veteran was afforded an in-person VA examination in December 2014. The examiner thoroughly reviewed the Veteran’s file. The examiner noted that the Veteran was diagnosed with pseudofolliculitis barbae in 1980 and seborrheic dermatitis in 2012, and that both conditions were resolved at the time of the VA examination. The examiner explained that the current exam was unremarkable for symptoms. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s facial skin condition is less likely than not incurred in or caused by shaving during military service. The examiner reasoned that although the Veteran’s account of past events describes a history consistent with pseudofolliculitis barbae, no current symptoms or findings are shown on the VA examination. The examiner explained that the Veteran’s post-service VA treatment records only indicate a diagnosis of seborrheic dermatitis, which is not associated with constant shaving during service. This tends to show that the Veteran’s current seborrheic dermatitis is less likely than not related to service. The Veteran’s January 2016 VA treatment records document that the Veteran reported having a rash on his face intermittently for the three years prior to January 2016. This tends to show that the Veteran’s current diagnosis is not related to his pseudofolliculitis barbae diagnosed during service, as the Veteran reports that his current rash began in 2013, which is many years after his discharge in 1982. While the Veteran believes that his current seborrheic dermatitis is related to the pseudofolliculitis barbae that he experienced during service and shaving required during service, he is not competent to render such a nexus opinion, as he has not been shown to possess the expertise or training necessary to render a complex medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives the most probative weight to the competent medical evidence of record, the December 2014 VA examination, which shows that the Veteran’s current seborrheic dermatitis is not related to the pseudofolliculitis barbae he experienced during service. This VA examination was performed by a medical professional who possesses the necessary training and expertise to render a medical opinion on this matter. Further, the VA examiner reviewed the Veteran’s file and supported his medical opinion with a well-reasoned rationale. For all the reasons laid out above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to service connection for seborrheic dermatitis with pseudofolliculitis barbae. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, there is no reasonable doubt to be resolved, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Caruso, Associate Counsel