Citation Nr: 20028043 Decision Date: 04/22/20 Archive Date: 04/22/20 DOCKET NO. 11-05 396 DATE: April 22, 2020 ORDER Service connection for toenail fungus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s toenail fungus disability is related to his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for toenail fungus are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Air Force from July 1975 to March 1978. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2010 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the Board at a hearing held by the undersigned in November 2017. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The case was previously before the Board in February 2018 when it was remanded for further development. The record reflects the Veteran perfected an appeal of his claim seeking service connection for herpes, petitions to reopen claims of entitlement to service connection for hypertension and diabetes, and a claim of whether the severance of service connection for moderate degenerative changes at L5/S1 was proper. However, in his May 2018 VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals, the Veteran requested a videoconference hearing before the Board. As that hearing has not yet been scheduled, the appeal of those issues is not ready for adjudication and will not be addressed by the Board at this time. Entitlement to service connection for toenail fungus is granted. The Veteran and his representative contend that the Veteran’s toenail fungus is related to sharing restrooms and showers during his service. See Informal Hearing Presentation, dated March 13, 2020. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to his service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). VA treatment records show the Veteran has current diagnoses of deformed mycotic toenails and fungal nail infection. During service, the Veteran was seen for complaints of pain in the right foot in January 1977. Furthermore, in a September 2009 statement, the Veteran’s former spouse indicated that she remembers the Veteran being diagnosed with toenail fungus shortly after being stationed in North Dakota in 1976 during his service and that the condition continued to get progressively worse. The Veteran testified at his November 2017 Board hearing that he did not have toenail fungus prior to his service. He also testified that he has experienced continuous symptoms of toenail fungus since service. The Veteran and his former spouse are competent to report symptoms capable of lay observation such as toenail fungus, and the Board has no reason to doubt their credibility regarding when the Veteran first experienced his toenail fungus and continuity of symptomatology since that time. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service. On this question, a private nurse practitioner provided a probative opinion in favor of the claim. In February 2018, subsequent to when the Board issued its February 2018 remand, M.C., a private nurse practitioner, opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s time spent in the military sharing bathrooms and showers contributed to him contracting toenail fungus. In support of the opinion, M.C. noted that the Veteran had no issues with toenail fungus prior to service. She also noted how the Veteran shared a restroom and shower with approximately 50 men for 6 weeks during basic training, and thereafter shared a restroom and shower with 4 to 6 men for the remaining portion of his service. In addition, M.C. addressed the Veteran’s subjective reports that his toenails began to thicken and discolor when he was 20 years old. The Board places great weight of probative value on the opinion of M.C. as it is consistent with the record and reflects consideration of the Veteran’s history, including his subjective reports of sharing a restroom and shower with fellow servicemembers during his service. M.C. also provided a clear rationale for her conclusion. Thus, the Board resolves any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran and concludes that the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) have been met. As such, service connection for the Veteran’s toenail fungus is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). M. SORISIO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Breitbach, Associate 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.