Citation Nr: 20005603 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/23/20 DOCKET NO. 15-11 420 DATE: January 23, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus with pes equinus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s bilateral pes planus with pes equinus, which preexisted service, underwent a permanent increase in severity during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus with pes equinus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.306 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Air Force from December 2002 to December 2006. The Veteran also served in the United States Air Force from December 2006 to December 2012, but the latter period of service is not honorable for VA purposes. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Wichita. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in August 2019. 1. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral pes planus with pes equinus. The Veteran asserts that his bilateral pes planus, which was noted on his service entrance examination, was aggravated during service. A pre-existing injury or disease will be considered to have been aggravated by active military, naval, or air service where there is an increase in disability during such service, unless there is a specific finding that the increase in disability is due to the natural progression of the disease. 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(a). Clear and unmistakable evidence (obvious or manifest) is required to rebut the presumption of aggravation where the pre-service disability underwent an increase in severity during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (b); see Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (explaining that the burden is on the government to show a lack of aggravation by establishing that the increase in disability is due to the natural progress of the disease). The Board finds that service connection is warranted for the Veteran’s bilateral pes planus. The Veteran’s August 2002 entrance examination noted moderate, asymptomatic, pes planus. Subsequent treatment records show complaints and treatment for the Veteran’s pes planus in the form of orthotics and physical therapy consultations. See Medical Treatment Records, December 2004 and January 2005. During the August 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that prior to service his pes planus was asymptomatic and while in service running and physical training increased pain. See Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (2005) (holding that a lay person is competent to testify to pain and visible flatness of his feet, and that the veteran’s complaints of foot pain in service signaled an aggravation of his pre-existing foot disorder). Buddy statements from family members maintain that the Veteran first began complaining about pain in his feet during basic training in December 2002 and has complained of pain since that time. See Buddy Statements, March 2013 and April 2013. The Board acknowledges the negative nexus opinion in the February 2014 VA examination. However, since service the Veteran reports that he regularly experiences pain in his feet, limiting his ability to stand and walk, and that he has continuously experienced pain since service. The Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuation of symptoms and the board finds his testimony credible. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994) (noting that a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). As such, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds service connection is warranted. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Leigh, Attorney Advisor The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.