Citation Nr: 21012115 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 18-08 073 DATE: March 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Veteran has not had a current diagnosis for pseudofolliculitis barbae during the period on appeal. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from December 1967 to December 1969. Most recently, this claim was remanded by the Board in a November 2020 decision. The Board finds that the RO substantially complied with the Board’s remand directives, and the Board may now proceed with adjudication. The Veteran claims that he currently experiences pseudofolliculitis barbae that arose during or as a result of his active service. To substantiate a claim of service connection, there must be evidence of: (1) a current disability (for which service connection is sought); (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; 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, 1166-1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all evidence of record and an evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for disability due to disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that it was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Certain chronic diseases, to include arthritis and psychoses, may be presumed to have been incurred or aggravated in service, if manifested to a compensable degree within a specified time period post service. 38 U.S.C. § 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). For chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), service connection may be established by showing continuity of symptomatology after discharge. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Lay evidence may be competent evidence to establish incurrence. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). However, competent medical evidence is necessary where the determinative question is one requiring medical knowledge. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Competent medical evidence means evidence provided by a person who is qualified through education, training, or experience to offer medical diagnoses, statements, or opinions. Competent medical evidence may also mean statements conveying sound medical principles found in medical treatises. Competent medical evidence may also include statements contained in authoritative writings, such as medical and scientific articles and research reports or analyses. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1). Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. In this case, the Veteran first submitted a claim for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae in September 2015. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) are negative for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of pseudofolliculitis barbae. The Veteran’s post-service VA and private treatment records are negative for evidence of complaints or treatment for pseudofolliculitis barbae in the 12-month period immediately following separation from active service or for medical opinions tying such a condition to active service. Additionally, the Veteran’s medical treatment records are negative for a current diagnosis for pseudofolliculitis barbae during the period on appeal or recent thereto. In an August 2016 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) statement, the Veteran asserted that the condition had been chronic since service and continued to be a problem. During the Veteran’s January 2020 VA examination for skin conditions, the VA examiner noted that the pseudofolliculitis barbae had its onset in 1969. The Veteran no longer shaved due to his in-service difficulties with shaving, and he had not seen a doctor for his pseudofolliculitis barbae. No pseudofolliculitis barbae was visible at the time of the examination. During his January 2021 VA examination for skin conditions, the VA examiner noted that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis for pseudofolliculitis barbae. The examiner stated that there was no documented treatment for a skin disorder of the face or neck other than the 2020 VA examination, when no pseudofolliculitis barbae was found. The examiner found no evidence of the condition again. The Veteran reported that he had a shaving profile during service. The examiner stated that while the symptoms of pseudofolliculitis barbae were not present, they were likely to recur if the Veteran resumed shaving. The examiner did find that pseudofolliculitis barbae was at least likely as not to have arisen during or as a result of the Veteran’s active service. The condition was currently resolved, but it would recur if shaving resumed. The Veteran has asserted that he has experienced pseudofolliculitis barbae since active service and that it continues to be a problem. In considering the Veteran’s contentions, the Board notes that he is competent to observe lay symptoms but does not have the training or credentials to provide a competent opinion as to etiology, diagnosis, or the onset date of a medical disability. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran has not provided sufficient details to support a finding that he has, during the period on appeal, experienced symptoms of the claimed condition. His lay contentions are thus of markedly lower probative value than, and are outweighed by, the VA examination opinions and medical evidence of record. The Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis for pseudofolliculitis barbae or has had such a diagnosis during the period on appeal. While the condition would likely recur if the Veteran resumed shaving, the 2021 VA examiner stated that the condition was currently resolved, and there is no documented treatment for pseudofolliculitis barbae. The Board is aware that the 2021 examiner indicated that the disability may recur in the future; should a diagnosis of pseudofolliculitis arise in the future, the Veteran may of course submit a Supplemental Claim for this benefit. Based on the present facts, however, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim. Accordingly, the claim for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Hicks, 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.