Citation Nr: A21020126 Decision Date: 12/16/21 Archive Date: 12/16/21 DOCKET NO. 191213-50802 DATE: December 16, 2021 ORDER Service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is denied. Service connection for allergic rhinitis is denied. REMANDED Service connection for dermatitis (also claimed as dyshidrosis) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has a current disability of GERD. 2. The Veteran did not experience an in-service injury, disease, or event associated with GERD. 3. The Veteran has a current disability of allergic rhinitis. 4. The Veteran did not experience an in-service injury, disease, or event associated with allergic rhinitis. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for GERD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 2. The criteria for service connection for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 1999 to May 2003. The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55, which became effective in February 2019 (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), creates a new framework of review for veterans who disagree with VA's decision on their claim. This matter is on appeal from a May 2018 rating decision issued by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), also known as the Regional Office (RO). The Veteran filed a timely AMA notice of disagreement (NOD) on December 13, 2019, requesting direct review by the Board. Pursuant to the AMA NOD, the Board notes that the evidentiary record closed on December 13, 2019. Legal Authority for Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability arising from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. 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. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 1. Service Connection for GERD The Veteran contends that service connection for GERD is warranted as it had its onset during service. After a review of the evidence of record, both lay and medical, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current disability of GERD. See October 2017 VA Treatment Records. The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran experienced an in-service injury, disease, or event associated with GERD. Upon review of the service treatment records, there are no complaints of or treatment for GERD. While there is no service separation examination of record, the Veteran has reported several more minor ailments but never reported any symptoms related to GERD. See March 2000 Service Treatment Records (Common cold); September 2000 Service Treatment Records (Shin splints); January 2002 Service Treatment Records (Morning sickness related to pregnancy); April 2003 Service Treatment Records (Viral illness). The first report of GERD symptoms of record is in October 2017 VA treatment records, approximately 14 years after service separation. Based on the foregoing, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the criteria for service connection for GERD have been met; as such, the claim must be denied. 2. Service Connection for Allergic Rhinitis The Veteran contends that service connection for rhinitis is warranted as it had its onset during service. After a review of the evidence of record, both lay and medical, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current disability of allergic rhinitis. See April 2008 VA Treatment Records. The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran experienced an in-service injury, disease, or event associated with allergic rhinitis. Upon review of the service treatment records, there are no complaints of or treatment for allergic rhinitis. The Board notes that the Veteran reported congestion during service, each report was related to a common cold or a virus, not allergies. See March 2000 Service Treatment Records (Common cold); October 2000 Service Treatment Records (Common cold and bronchitis); August 2001 Service Treatment Records (Common cold); April 2003 Service Treatment Records (Viral illness). While there is no service separation examination of record, the Veteran has reported several more minor ailments but never reported any symptoms related to allergic rhinitis. See September 2000 Service Treatment Records (Shin splints); January 2002 Service Treatment Records (Morning sickness related to pregnancy). The first report of allergic rhinitis symptoms of record is in April 2008 VA treatment records, approximately 4 years after service separation. Based on the foregoing, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the criteria for service connection for allergic rhinitis have been met; as such, the claim must be denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connection for dermatitis (also claimed as dyshidrosis) is remanded. The Veteran generally requests compensation for dermatitis. VA must afford a veteran a medical examination and/or obtain a medical opinion when it is necessary to make a decision on the claim. After a review of the evidence of record, both lay and medical, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current disability of dermatitis. See April 2008 VA Treatment Records (The Veteran was diagnosed with a rash on the feet). Upon review of the service treatment records, the Board notes that the Veteran reported dry skin on the hands in June 2000 during service and claimed that she had no history of this condition; the Veteran was diagnosed with atopic dermatitis. The Veteran as not been afforded a VA examination for this issue. The Board finds that the AOJ committed a pre-decisional error in that it did not provide the Veteran a VA examination and did not obtain a VA opinion. Accordingly, remand for a VA examination and VA opinion is needed. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the appropriate VA examination in order to help determine the nature and etiology of the claimed dermatitis. All indicated diagnostic testing studies should be performed. The VA examiner should provide the following opinion: Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent probability or greater) that the current dermatitis on the feet is related to the in-service diagnosis of atopic dermatitis on the hands in June 2000? E. Choi Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Costantino, 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.