Citation Nr: 20009699 Decision Date: 02/06/20 Archive Date: 02/05/20 DOCKET NO. 16-00 202 DATE: February 6, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for residuals associated with facial injuries status-post surgery is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s residuals associated with facial injuries status-post surgery did not originate in service, and are not otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for residuals associated with facial injuries status-post surgery are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1955 through March 1961. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously remanded by the Board in December 2017 for further development. The Board notes that in a February 2020 appellate brief, the Veteran, through his representative waived initial consideration by the RO for additional VA and private treatment records received since the last supplemental statement of the case. See February 2020 Appellate Brief. Accordingly, the Board will proceed with adjudication of the issues on appeal. Entitlement to service connection for residuals associated with facial injuries status-post surgery. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Here, the Veteran has asserted during VA examinations conducted in January 2014 that he sustained severe facial injuries in an assault that occurred in 1960 while he was in civilian police custody in Amarillo, Texas. See March 2014 VA Examination. In an August 2013 VA treatment record, the Veteran stated that after he joined the Air Force, he was deployed to Alaska and that his new spouse stayed with his parents. After he left, he stated that she ran off with another man. See January 2014 CAPRI. He reported that when he got back, he attempted to reunite with his spouse but was unable to do so. However, she became pregnant with their daughter. He stated that after the daughter was born, he was not allowed to see her. The Veteran reported that when his daughter was two years old, he went to ask to see her, but his ex-wife called the police. He indicated that when the police arrived, they beat him “badly” and he was jailed for several days. He indicated that he was eventually released back to his unit where he reported going “crazy.” He indicated that he was subsequently hospitalized in a locked unit for an undetermined amount of time after which he was released back to his unit. Shortly after that, he stated he requested a compassionate discharge and subsequently was released from service. The Veteran reported that he had been beaten by the civilian police in Amarillo, Texas to the point that his whole face was disfigured, resulting in facial reconstruction surgery, and that to this day, he experienced flashbacks and nightmares from the assault in 1960. See April 2017 Correspondence A review of the service treatment records (STRs) and military personnel records confirm the Veteran’s reports of family issues, including marital issues, that led to his request to be discharged as he was “disturbed emotionally” at the time. See April 2018 Military Personnel Record. A review of the STRs also shows the Veteran’s reports of depression and excessive worry due to personal reasons on his January 1961 separation report of medical examination. See March 1967 STR – Medical. Military personnel records also noted the Veteran’s multiple arrests by the Amarillo city police in 1960, to include a simple assault charge in May 1960, as well as confinement at the Amarillo City Jail in November 1960. See August 2018 Military Personnel Record. The Board notes that the STRs and military personnel records do not show any reports of facial injury during active service or any residual injuries that were severe enough to show the Veteran had been beaten so badly that it had completely disfigured his face and would require facial reconstructive surgery. The Board acknowledges a September 1960 STR that noted the Veteran was “picked up drunk by AP’s, combative with head bruises and scratch on neck” and was admitted for sedation and observation. See March 1967 STR – Medical. However, the Board notes that the evidence of record shows that the facial surgery he received involved facial bone reconstruction and sinus surgery from nasal septal deformity. See January 2014 CAPRI and June 2014 Medical Treatment Record – Government Facility. The September 1960 STR only noted head bruises and a scratch on the neck. A review of the Veteran’s separation examinations in January 1961 from active service also show the Veteran did not report any residual injuries from the claimed assault, to include nasal issues. See April 2018 STR – Medical. The January 1961 separation report of medical examination noted the Veteran’s head, face, neck, scalp, nose, sinuses, and mouth as normal on clinical evaluation. See March 1967 STR – Medical. The Veteran also reported that he had filed a complaint with the Amarillo police department against the arresting officers for police brutality and the assault and that he was made to sign a document to drop all charges against the police department in order to be released from incarceration. See October 2018 Civilian Police Reports. However, the Veteran has not provided and the record does not show any evidence to support such claims. The Board highlights that the first mention as to the aforementioned in-service civilian police assault was in 2013. Instead, treatment records in October 1989 during one of his reconstruction surgeries for his face, he indicated he had trauma in the past “several years ago.” See June 2014 Medical Treatment Record – Government Facility. The record noted a preoperative diagnosis of nasal septal deformity, airway obstruction, obstructive sleep apnea, deviated and traumatic nose. This surgery was conducted almost two decades after separation from active service, and the Veteran’s report of a trauma “several years ago” suggests that the Veteran’s claimed assault was not incurred during active service. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s spouse’s statements in support of the claim. However, the Board notes that she has not specifically contended that she personally witnessed the resulting traumatic injuries from the aforementioned alleged in-service civilian police assault or was informed of the assault near or around the time of the claimed incident. Instead, she indicated it was only a few years prior to the January 2018 correspondence that the Veteran had confided in her as to what happened in Amarillo, Texas. See October 2019 Correspondence. Considering the severity of the claimed assault alleged by the Veteran, the lack of objective medical evidence supporting such a severe injury incurred during active service, and the discrepancy as to the timeline for the assault, the Board finds that the most persuasive evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s claimed residuals associated with facial injuries status-post surgery are not related to service or any incident during service. Consequently, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for the claimed residuals associated with facial injuries status-post surgery. Accordingly, the claim must be denied. In denying the claim, the Board has considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the doctrine is not for application. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Cheng, Counsel 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.