Citation Nr: 21065463 Decision Date: 10/26/21 Archive Date: 10/26/21 DOCKET NO. 18-53 311A DATE: October 26, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for folliculitis barbae also claimed as pseudofolliculitis is granted. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence shows the Veteran's folliculitis barbae also claimed as pseudofolliculitis manifested while in service and has continued to the present. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for folliculitis barbae also claimed as pseudofolliculitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from August 1979 to August 1982. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision, dated June 2017, issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran timely appealed. A Board video hearing was held before the undersigned in January 2021. The hearing transcript has been associated with the Veteran's file. Service Connection In seeking VA disability compensation, a Veteran generally seeks to establish that a current disability results from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131. "Service connection" basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a current 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381, F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also 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). When there is an approximate balance of evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each issue shall be given to the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. A claimant need only demonstrate an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence in order to prevail. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). For a claim to be denied on the merits, a preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). Entitlement to service connection for folliculitis barbae also claimed as pseudofolliculitis The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for folliculitis barbae also claimed as pseudofolliculitis. Following a thorough review of the Veteran's medical records, the Board finds that he is entitled to an award of service connection. As an initial matter, a review of the Veteran's February 2021 dermatology consultation shows the Veteran has a current diagnosis of pseudofolliculitis barbae. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran has satisfied the first prong of service connection, the existence of a current disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As to evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, the Veteran reported that his skin condition began while in service. See Hearing Transcript dated January 2021. He reported that the skin condition "started after I went to my permanent station in Fort Ord, California." He noted that when he shaved in service, he would get a lot of bumps on his face, some of which would produce pus. During service, the doctors noted that he had pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB). He was put on a shaving profile so that he was not required to shave while in service due to the condition. He did not shave after service for several years because it would result in bumps on his skin. However, when he finally did try shaving, he had the exact same response that he had while he was in service. He had been treated by VA with various types of creams and an antibiotic. The Veteran confirmed that the VA doctors who were treating him also diagnosed this as either folliculitis barbae or PFB, the same diagnosis he received while in service. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) have been obtained to the extent available. Unfortunately, a portion of the Veteran's STRs could not be located. In a letter dated April 2017, VA provided, "We requested your service treatment records. We have determined that these records cannot be located and therefore are unavailable for review. All efforts to obtain the needed information have been exhausted, and based on these facts, we have determined that further attempts to obtain the records would be futile." When there is evidence that a Veteran's service records have been lost or destroyed, as is the case here, VA has a heightened duty to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule, to assist a claimant in developing a claim, and to explain its findings and conclusions. Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369-70 (2005). In this case, records which could corroborate the Veteran's in-service injury have been determined to be missing. Thus, the Board acknowledges that there is a heightened obligation to explain findings and to carefully consider the resolution of reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. As the Veteran is both competent and credible to report an onset of a skin condition in service and identify the recurrence of symptoms as they are readily observable, the Board finds that the Veteran has satisfied the second prong of service connection, evidence of an in-service injury. Turning next to evidence of a causal relationship between the present disability and injury during service, the Board finds the weight of the evidence supports a nexus. In reaching this determination, the Board finds that the Veteran has competently and credibly reported that his skin condition began while in service and has continued to the present. A review of the Veteran's medical records show that the Veteran has received consistent treatment for folliculitis barbae, also known as pseudofolliculitis. The Veteran's testimony from his hearing in January 2021 is consistent with the evidence of record and what the Veteran has continued to report about his skin disability. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of his symptoms. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The Veteran is competent to report a skin condition and is competent to report that the skin condition he currently experiences is identical to the skin condition that he experienced while in service and has continued to experience since service. With regards to whether the Veteran's statements are credible, there is no evidence that contradicts the Veteran's report of symptoms since service. The Board finds the lay statements from the Veteran about his skin condition are both competent and credible. The Veteran has credibly and competently reported that his skin condition began while he was in service and has continued to the present. There is no competent evidence to the contrary. In light of the above, the Board finds the Veteran's competent and credible reports that his skin condition was incurred coincident to service and symptoms have recurred to the present. Thus, the Board finds that service connection for folliculitis barbae also claimed as pseudofolliculitis has been established. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The claim is granted. LAURA E. COLLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Minock 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.