Citation Nr: A25086471 Decision Date: 10/07/25 Archive Date: 10/07/25 DOCKET NO. 240407-432431 DATE: October 7, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome is denied. Entitlement to service connection for headaches is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The most persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Veteran has not been diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. 2. The most persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Veteran's headaches did not have their onset in active duty service or were otherwise etiologically related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome 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 headaches 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 from August 2011 to March 2012. The rating decision on appeal was issued in February 2024 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In the April 7, 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. Pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA), VA has duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159. The Veteran has not raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Generally, service connection requires: (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. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 - 67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). The first requirement for any service connection claim is evidence of a disability. Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). 1. Entitlement to service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome is denied. Service treatment records do not show complaints of, treatment for, and a diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. In the September 2023 claim, the Veteran generally contended that she had chronic fatigue syndrome caused by service. According to post-service VA and private treatment records, the Veteran did not report fatigue and was not diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome during the period on appeal. Based on a careful review of all of the subjective and clinical evidence, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against finding that service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome is warranted. The Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome and has not had a diagnosis at any time during the course of the appeal or recent to the filing of this claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). According to post-service treatment records, the Veteran does not have chronic fatigue syndrome. The Veteran is certainly competent to report her symptoms of fatigue. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). However, the Veteran has not reported any such symptoms nor presented any competent and credible evidence of a current diagnosis for chronic fatigue syndrome. Further, the available evidence does not support that the Veteran has any persistent symptomatology that would suggest that she has an underlying chronic disability. Additionally, a VA examination under the standards of McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006) is not warranted in this case. There is no credible, probative evidence suggesting that the Veteran has chronic fatigue syndrome. Thus, the Board finds that the duty to assist is not invoked, even under McLendon, as here the evidence fails the McLendon analysis for this claim. A mere conclusory generalized statement that a service event or illness caused the claimant's current condition is insufficient to require the Secretary to provide an examination. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discussing the circumstances when a VA examination and opinion are required). For the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against finding in favor of the Veteran's service connection claim. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b), is therefore not for application as to these claims. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). 2. Entitlement to service connection for headaches is denied. Service treatment records do not show complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of headaches. In the September 2023 claim, the Veteran generally contended that she had chronic headaches caused by service. According to post-service VA and private treatment records, the Veteran generally denied headaches during the period on appeal. She reported having a cold with headaches and sinus pressure, and was diagnosed sinus pressure in April 2023. Based on a careful review of all of the subjective and clinical evidence, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively weighs against finding that service connection for headaches is warranted. Service treatment records do not show that the Veteran had headaches during service and the Veteran has not provided any details as to how her headaches are due to service. Additionally, the headaches the Veteran had during the period on appeal appear to be due to sinus pressure and a cold. (Continued on the next page) ? Additionally, a VA examination under the standards of McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006) is not warranted in this case. There is no credible, probative evidence suggesting that the Veteran's headaches were due to service. Thus, the Board finds that the duty to assist is not invoked, even under McLendon, as here the evidence fails the McLendon analysis for this claim. A mere conclusory generalized statement that a service event or illness caused the claimant's current condition is insufficient to require the Secretary to provide an examination. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (discussing the circumstances when a VA examination and opinion are required). For the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether service connection for headaches is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against finding in favor of the Veteran's service connection claim. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b), is therefore not for application as to these claims. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). LESLEY A. REIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Ko, Elise 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.