Citation Nr: 21013491 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 18-22 331 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left cheek scar is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his left cheek scar is the result of an injury incurred while on active duty for training (ADT). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for left cheek injury are 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 duty service from September 1963 to March 1964. He served in the Army National Guard of Pennsylvania from July 1963 to July 1969, with periods of ADT. This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2021. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. Entitlement to service connection for left cheek scar The Veteran contends that he suffers from a left cheek injury as a result of his service. The Veteran claims that while riding in the back of a truck during a two-week training in the National Guard, he was struck in the face by a butcher block that slid off a stove when making a turn. The Veteran contends that his cheek was cut open and a medic placed a Band-Aid suture on the wound. See January 2021 Board hearing transcript. Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). “Active service” includes active duty, a period of ADT in which the individual was disabled from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, and a period of inactive duty for training (IDT) in which the individual was disabled from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(21), (24)(B); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a). See also Brooks v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 484 (1994). ADT includes full-time duty performed for training purposes by members of the Reserves or National Guard. 38 U.S.C. § 101(22); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c). IDT is generally duty (other than full-time duty) prescribed for Reserves or duty performed by a member of the National Guard of any State (other than full-time duty). 38 U.S.C. § 101(23); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(d). Annual training is an example of ADT, while weekend drills are IDT. The Veteran was provided with a VA Scars/Disfigurement Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) in March 2019 where he was diagnosed with a scar under his left eye. At the January 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran’s spouse testified that when she asked him what happened regarding the scar on his cheek, the Veteran told her that he was struck in the face with a butcher block while being transported from one state to another for camping. See January 2021 Board hearing transcript. In January 2021, the Veteran submitted a statement from his brother stating that he remembered the Veteran “getting hurt at summer camp and a scar on his left cheekbone.” The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report that he suffered an injury in service. The Veteran has consistently reported that his left cheek scar is due to an injury in service. The evidence of record also includes lay statements from the Veteran’s spouse and brother indicating that the Veteran’s cheek injury occurred while he was on ADT. The Board acknowledges the March 2019 DBQ where the examiner opined that the Veteran’s left cheek scar was less likely than not due to his service because there was no record of a cheek injury and “there is no objective evidence to support the fact that the claimed incident caused a cheek injury.” The examiner added that “the incident was not recorded in his medical history while he was in military service.” He noted that he could not say “that was caused by an event which occurred while in military service as there is no proper documentation in records from time in service.” However, the Board notes that following this opinion, the testimony of the Veteran’s spouse and the lay statements of his brother regarding his cheek injury while in ADT were added to the claims file. These statements provide objective evidence corroborating the Veteran’s contentions that his cheek injury occurred while in ADT. As such, the Board finds that the March 2019 DBQ has no probative value in this case because the negative nexus opinion was based on the lack of objective evidence supporting the fact that the claimed incident occurred. The Veteran has competently reported that he suffered from a left cheek injury while in service that resulted in a scar, which is corroborated by the statements of his spouse and brother. Accordingly, after resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for left cheek injury is warranted. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). M. Donohue Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Morrad, 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.