Citation Nr: A21020620 Decision Date: 12/29/21 Archive Date: 12/29/21 DOCKET NO. 191021-43457 DATE: December 29, 2021 ORDER New and relevant evidence having been received, the application to reopen the claim of service connection for a head scar is granted. Service connection for a head scar is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from June 1981 to June 1984. 2. In July 2019, the Regional Office (RO) declined to readjudicate the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a head scar. 3. The evidence received since the July 2019 rating decision raises new and relevant evidence with respect to the Veteran's contentions of in-service injuries to the head. 4. The evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's head scar was incurred in his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for readjudicating the claim of service connection for a head scar have been met. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a). 2. Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for a head scar have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103(a), 5103A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.6, 3.159, 3.303, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In August 2017, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), was signed into law. This law created a new framework for veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. This decision has been written under the AMA guidelines. The rating decision on appeal was issued in September 2019. In October 2019, the Veteran appealed the rating decision to the Board and selected the Hearing docket. According to the RAMP opt-in signed by the Veteran, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the RAMP opt-in, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). In connection with this appeal, the Veteran testified before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in August 2021. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the record. New and Relevant Evidence to Readjudicate Claim VA will readjudicate a claim if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1). New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). "Relevant evidence" is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue. Id. New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim. Relevant evidence includes evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). "To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: "(1) the existence of a present 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"- the so-called "nexus" requirement." Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran can provide competent reports of factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge, such as experiencing pain in service, reporting to sick call, being placed on limited duty, and undergoing physical therapy. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a lay person is competent to identify the medical condition (noting that sometimes the lay person will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer), (2) the lay person is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Similarly, laypersons are competent to diagnose and provide nexus opinions to some extent, notably where the diagnosis or opinion is not of a complex nature. Id., see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In an unappealed, the RO denied service connection for a head scar due to the loss of the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) and thus, an inability to show an in-service incurrence. In a July 2019 rating decision, the RO declined to readjudicate the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for a head scar. The Veteran filed a supplemental claim in August 2019. While the STRs remain unrecovered, he has provided credible testimony at his August 2021 Board hearing outlining his in-service injuries and his current head scar. This new evidence in support of continuity and nexus tends to prove a matter at issue in this matter. In light of the foregoing, readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for a head scar is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a). Service Connection for a Head Scar Initially, the Veteran has a scar on his head. While he has only referred to it in passing in treatment records, he testified at his August 2021 Board hearing to the presence of the scar and showed it to the VLJ on camera. Thus, a current disability is shown, and the first element of service connection is met. As to an in-service incurrence, the Veteran's STRs have not been located. Nevertheless, the Veteran has provided credible testimony as to how he injured his head during service on his way back to Camp LeJeune and was later transported to a civilian hospital to receive treatment and stitches in 1980 or 1981. He then had his stitches removed at a military hospital at Camp LeJeune. He has also submitted a February 2019 buddy statement, which corroborates the occurrence of his injury. In light of the Veteran's competent and credible assertions of in-service head injury and continuing head scar, as well as the February 2019 buddy statement, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran has a head scar, which was incurred during his active duty service. The benefit-of-the-doubt rule is therefore for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Board will resolve the reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor and find that the evidence supports the grant of service connection for a head scar. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107. The Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). Katherine Kiemle Buckley Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Yacoub, 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.