Citation Nr: 21073714
Decision Date: 12/10/21	Archive Date: 12/10/21

DOCKET NO. 13-16 964
DATE: December 10, 2021

ORDER

Service connection for residuals of a nasal fracture is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

Resolving all doubt in his favor, it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's residuals of a nasal fracture was incurred in and/or otherwise related to active-duty service. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for residuals of a nasal fracture are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1995 to March 1999.  He also had periods of Army National Guard and Army Reserve service from March 1999 to December 2006.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from June 2011 rating decisions of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Atlanta, Georgia.

In February 2020, the Board remanded the Veteran's claim for further development consistent with the Board's directives.  The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with its remand directives.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).

Service Connection

Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from diseases or injuries which are clearly present in service or for a disease diagnosed after discharge from service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

If a chronic disease, is shown in service, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, may be service connected, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b). If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required for service connection if the disability is one that is listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a).  The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has held that the theory of continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) does not apply to any condition that has not been recognized as chronic under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a).  Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013).  If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally, a showing of continuity of symptoms after service is required for service connection.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b).

Service connection may also be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

Entitlement to service connection for a nasal disorder 

The Veteran asserts that his nasal disorder is related to active-duty service. After a detailed review of the record, the Board determines that service connection is warranted for the Veteran's nasal disorder.

In this case, the Board takes note of the fact that the Veteran was diagnosed with a nasal disorder within a few months after active service.  Moreover, the Veteran states that his disorder began in 1996 and was aggravated by the May 1999 incident.  Additionally, the Veteran has two positive VA nexus opinions in 2010 and 2021 relating his nasal disorder to active-duty service.  As a result, the evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran's nasal disorder had its onset in, and/or is related to active service.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(3).  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.

 

 

B.T. KNOPE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Billinger, Associate Counsel