Citation Nr: 21026988 Decision Date: 05/04/21 Archive Date: 05/04/21 DOCKET NO. 16-57 962 DATE: May 4, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for nasal damage/nose bleeds is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current disability manifested by nasal damage or chronic nose bleeds. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for nasal damage/nose bleeds have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service with the United States Air Force from May 1991 to May 2014. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Meritorious Service Medal, the Air Medal, the Aerial Achievement Medal, and Campaign Medals from Afghanistan and Iraq. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2015 decision. In June 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. The claim was remanded by the Board in January 2021 in order to obtain further VA medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's claimed nasal damage/nose bleeds. The Board is satisfied that there has been substantial compliance with the remand directives, and it may proceed with a decision at this time. Service Connection To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki,557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38U.S.C. §§1110, 1131; 38C.F.R. §3.303(a). 1. Nasal Damage/Nose Bleeds The Veteran contends that he chronic nose bleeds which began during his military service. A March 1997 Health History Questionnaire shows that the Veteran reported that he had a "bleeding nose." On VA examination in September 2020, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with nasal damage/nose bleeds and mucocele cyst and noted that the Veteran reported current symptoms of nose bleeds and dry nasal passages. However, the examiner stated that the Veteran's reports of nasal damage/nose bleeds/mucocele cyst during service were acute and that there was no evidence of chronicity of care. In a March 2021 report, a VA examiner noted reviewing the Veteran's medical records. The examiner concluded that there is no evidence of nasal damage per se. The examiner explained that it was unclear what damage was diagnosed in the September 2020 examination report. The examiner noted that the Veteran himself reported no injury in 2001 and never claimed a specific nasal injury. The examiner stated that the veteran's symptoms of hay fever, seasonal allergies, and nosebleeds are consistent with allergic rhinitis which can vary in presentation from season to season. Based on the above, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a diagnosed disability manifested by nasal damage/and or nose bleeds. In this respect, the March 2021 examiner related the Veteran's symptoms to allergic rhinitis for which he is service connected. While the Veteran's report of having a history of nasal damage and nose bleeds was considered, he was not found to have a current diagnosed disability related to such, and the examiner found that there was no pathology to render a diagnosis for the claimed conditions. On the other hand, the September 2020 VA examination report was confusing and did not provide a clear diagnosis of a current disability. Thus, the Board finds that the March 2021 opinion is of greater probative value (and is adequate, as it considered the Veteran's entire history, responded directly to the questions posed by the Board, and contained a sufficient rationale) than the September 2020 opinion. The preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim. Accordingly, service connection for nasal damage/nose bleeds is not warranted. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Henriquez, 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.