Citation Nr: 21008970 Decision Date: 02/18/21 Archive Date: 02/18/21 DOCKET NO. 11-12 918 DATE: February 18, 2021 ORDER Service connection for allergic rhinitis is denied. Service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s allergic rhinitis did not have its onset in service, is not related to herbicide exposure, and is not related to service. 2. The Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy did not have its onset in service, is not related to herbicide exposure, and is not related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for allergic rhinitis are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from December 1966 to September 1969, including service in Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2010 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran, his daughter and his son-in-law presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in October 2016. In August 2017 and December 2019, the Board remanded this case for development. Service Connection The Veteran seeks service connection for allergic rhinitis and a neurological disorder. More specifically, he contends that these disabilities are the result of herbicide exposure in Vietnam. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting in a disease or injury that is incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 U.S.C. § 3.303. To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and current disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). When there is evidence of in-service exposure to herbicide agents, including Agent Orange, during the Vietnam War Era and the Veteran manifests certain enumerated diseases, including early onset peripheral neuropathy, to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (b), 3.307(a)(6), 3.309(e); see Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Allergic Rhinitis The Veteran has a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. See August 2020 VA examination. He contends that he developed allergic rhinitis symptoms after returning from Vietnam. As a result, it is his contention that his allergic rhinitis is due to exposure to herbicides in service. Here, the Veteran served in Vietnam and is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents, specifically Agent Orange. Nonetheless, service connection is not warranted because the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis is not related to his Agent Orange herbicide exposure. The Veteran contends that he started having allergic rhinitis symptoms after he returned from Vietnam. See August 2020 VA examination. The August 2020 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis was not related to his Agent Orange exposure. In reaching this conclusion, the VA examiner discussed medical studies indicating that there is no association between Agent Orange exposure and specific diseases involving immune suppression, allergy, autoimmunity, or inflammation. The Board finds the VA examiner’s conclusion more probative than the Veteran’s contentions that his allergic rhinitis is related to Agent Orange exposure. This is because the etiology of allergic rhinitis is medically complex requiring medical expertise and knowledge. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The evidence also does not support that the Veteran had allergic rhinitis in service or that his allergic rhinitis was present to a compensable degree shortly after service. By history, it was noted that the Veteran had allergic rhinitis after service. See March 2018 VA examination. There was a treatment record indicating a history of allergic rhinitis in 2004. The Veteran also reported symptoms like nose bleeds with his allergic rhinitis for about 5 years. Id. At separation the Veteran specifically endorsed being in good health and not having allergic rhinitis symptoms, like ear, nose, or throat trouble. The VA examiner also opined that the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis is not related to service. See March 2018 and August 2020 VA examination. The evidence does not support that the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis had its onset in service or shortly after service. Thus, service connection must be denied. Peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities The Board finds that service connection is not warranted for peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. The Veteran has a diagnosis of peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities. See August 2020 VA examination. He contends that his peripheral neuropathy is due to his Agent Orange exposure. He also reports first experiencing the symptoms of peripheral neuropathy in the late 1970s. See October 2016 Hr’g Tr. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy is not related to his Agent Orange exposure. See August 2020 VA examination. The Board finds this opinion to be highly probative because it is based on accurate facts of this case. The Board notes the Veteran’s contentions regarding the etiology of his peripheral neuropathy, but as noted above the etiology of this disability is complex requiring medical expertise. Consequently, the Veteran’s peripheral neuropathy is not related to service or his Agent Orange exposure in service. By the Veteran’s own statements, his peripheral neuropathy did not begin within a year following service. See October 2016 Hr’g Tr. The VA examiner also opined that based on this, the Veteran did not have early-onset peripheral neuropathy. As a result, here, presumptive service connection is not warranted. Further, at the separation exam, the Veteran specifically denied experiencing cramps in the legs. His own lay statements indicate that he did not experience peripheral neuropathy symptoms while in service. As a result, this disability did not have its onset in service.   Thus, service connection for peripheral neuropathy must be denied. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.Ijitimehin, 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.