Citation Nr: 21020948 Decision Date: 04/08/21 Archive Date: 04/08/21 DOCKET NO. 20-19 474 DATE: April 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for rhinitis is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Inservice rhinitis was acute and resolved. 2. Medically chronic rhinitis was not manifest during service. Current rhinitis is unrelated to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1966 to April 1986. The Board notes that starting with recent rating decisions, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) referred to the Veteran’s discharge during the period of service from August 1968 to February 1969 as dishonorable. The Board cannot find anything in the military personnel records that refer to this period of active duty as “dishonorable.” The Board also cannot find an administrative finding that this period of service was “dishonorable.” As such, the Board confirms that the Veteran’s service during this period resulted in an honorable discharge. At this time, the basis for the finding of the RO is unknown and inconsistent with the prior rating decisions and the personnel records reviewed on appeal. It is suggested that the AOJ review the determination regarding character of service and correct the record as needed. The claim currently before the Board was remanded in September 2020. 1. Entitlement to service connection for rhinitis Veterans are entitled to compensation if they develop a disability “resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty.” 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (wartime service), 1131 (peacetime service). To establish entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits, 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.” See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. See Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1, 8 (1999). The Veteran argues that his rhinitis is related to service. In particular, it is argued that the Veteran, throughout his service, has consistently reported nasal issues. Service treatment records indicate nasal problems, but do not specifically diagnose chronic rhinitis. A medical record from January 1975 notes a runny nose. A medical evaluation dated May 17, 1979 noted that the Veteran had chills and cough three times a day. The records also mentioned “rhinitis.” March 1981 and May 1982 SOAP medical records assessed the Veteran with rhinitis. A consultation sheet from May 17, 1984 states “bilateral frontal area on skull -> sinusitis.” Medical records indicate that the Veteran was hospitalized in February and March of 1985 for sinus infections. A December 1985 Report of Medical Examination noted that the Veteran had normal sinuses. However, in an accompanying Report of Medical History, the Veteran noted that he had a history of sinusitis. In a July 2004 VA examination, the Veteran complained of “aural fullness.” A Chronological Record of Medical Care from November 2009 lists rhinitis as currently being medicated for. Some treatment records list rhinitis under “Patient Problem” lists. See ex. Medical Treatment Record- Government Facility, received May 16, 2017. Pursuant to the Board’s remand, the Veteran was afforded a new examination in November 2020. The VA examiner, who reviewed the Veteran’s medical records, concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s rhinitis was incurred in or caused by an in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner wrote that “During service, rhinitis, was acute only. There is no evidence of chronicity of care and symptoms are subjective only. A nexus has not been established. … there are no medical evaluations noted in the available medical records for chronic rhinitis while on active duty. There is a lack of objective medical evidence confirming the chronicity of a chronic sinus condition or chronic rhinitis while on active duty. The separation exam dated 12/18/1985 did not note a sinus condition. The Veteran is deemed competent to provide a history of his/her symptoms. The lay statements and buddy statements regarding the Veteran’s symptoms were also considered. However, the Veteran is not capable of diagnosing the medical condition related to those symptoms.” In adjudicating a claim, the Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. See Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. The former is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while the latter is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 74 (1997). The probative value of a medical opinion primarily comes from its reasoning; threshold considerations are whether a person opining is suitably qualified and sufficiently informed. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). In this case, the Board accepts the November 2020 VA medical opinion that the Veteran’s rhinitis is less likely than not related to service as probative medical evidence on this point. The Board notes that the examiner rendered this opinion after thoroughly reviewing the claims file and relevant medical records. The examiner noted the Veteran’s pertinent history and provided a reasoned analysis of the case. See Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 383 (1998); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 40 (1994). The Board has considered the lay statements of the Veteran regarding his rhinitis. The Veteran is competent to provide evidence of what he experiences, including his symptomatology and medical history. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Veteran is competent to report what he experienced. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, the Board does not find his statements to be as probative as the VA examiner’s opinion, which was based on extensive review of the record, thorough examination, consideration of the lay statements, and the VA examiner’s medical expertise. Notably, the Veteran has not indicated that a medical professional provided him with a diagnosis of rhinitis, to include chronic rhinitis, during active service, or within a year of separation. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence is against linking the post-service rhinitis to service. The contemporaneous, and more probative, records establish that relevant systems were normal at separation. The more probative evidence establishes that the Veteran did not have a medically chronic rhinitis, during service, that such disorder is not related to any event in service. The evidence establishes that the remote onset of rhinitis is unrelated to service to include the acute in-service episodes. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jonah Nelson, 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.