Citation Nr: A25035648 Decision Date: 04/17/25 Archive Date: 04/17/25 DOCKET NO. 240906-471521 DATE: April 17, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinea pedis (BTP) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral flat feet (BFF) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis (BPF) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against finding that BTP began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 2. The persuasive weight of the evidence is against finding the Veteran's BFF began during active service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 3. The Veteran did not attend his scheduled examination for evaluation of bilateral plantar fasciitis and did not provide good cause for not doing so. The record does not show a current diagnosis of BPF. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for BTP have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for BFF have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for BPF have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 2009 to April 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2024 and July 2024 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The rating decisions on appeal constitute an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. The Veteran timely appealed the rating decision by filing a September 2024 Decision Review Request. The Veteran elected Direct Review of his claim by a Veterans Law Judge. Therefore, only the evidence associated with the record at the time of the April 2024 and July 2024 rating decision will be considered on appeal. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Secondary service connection requires: (1) a service-connected disability; (2) a nonservice connected disability; and (3) evidence that the nonservice connected disability is either (a) proximately due to or the result of the service-connected disability or (b) aggravated (increased in severity) by the service-connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Under the Appeals Management Act, the Board is bound by favorable findings by the agency of jurisdiction in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for BTP. On the January 2024 VA 21-526EZ, the Veteran wrote that he developed BTP due to unclean community showers in service. The April 2024 rating decision favorably found the Veteran had a current diagnosis of BTP also known as athlete's foot. The claim was denied because the evidence did not show the condition occurred in or was caused by military service. A nexus was not established. The Board has reviewed the claims file including the Veteran's statements and finds service connection is not warranted. Service treatment records (STR), including the March 2010 separation examination, did not show complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of a condition. Post-service treatment records do not show the development of a condition within one year after discharge from service. See e.g., October 2023 VA mental health outpatient treatment plan note (foot pain). The Veteran was evaluated in April 2024 during a VA examination. The examiner confirmed a diagnosis of BTP. The Veteran reported that his BTP started in service. He also reported that he tried over the counter treatment for his condition, but nothing worked. The examiner opined the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner wrote "review of claims file is silent for any foot condition while in service and there is no chronicity of care noted. Service ended in 2010 and claim for athlete's foot not noted until 2024 making his current foot conditions not likely due to service." The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contentions that his current BTP is related to his service. However, STR do not show complaint, treatment, or diagnosis in service. Post-service treatment record did not show a diagnosis of a condition within one year after service. There was more than a 10-year gap between discharge from service and the diagnosis of the condition during the VA examination. The examiner did not support a nexus between the current condition and military service due to the lack of notation in the record and the lack of chronicity of care. There are no other opinions of record to contradict this finding. Accordingly, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for BTP have not been established, either through medical or lay evidence. In arriving at the decision to deny the claim, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the persuasive weight of the evidence is against the claim that doctrine is not applicable. 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); 38?C.F.R. §?3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1?Vet. App.?49, 53-56 (1990). 2. Entitlement to service connection for BFF. On the January 2024 VA 21-526EZ, the Veteran wrote that his BFF was worsened by service. He further wrote that he constantly used his feet while in pain. It was painful to walk, run, or stand for extended periods of time. In service he had over exertion and was required to wear boots most of the time. On the June 2024 VA 21-526EZ, the Veteran wrote this his condition worsened in service. He experienced pain and numbness. He also wrote "pretty much a normal lifestyle until here within the last 10 years [was] painful to walk or run or even wear tennis shoes comfortably." The April 2024 rating decision favorably found the Veteran had a current diagnosis of BFF. The claim was denied because the evidence did not show the condition occurred in or was caused by military service. A nexus was not established. The Board has reviewed the claims file including the Veteran's statements and finds that service connection is not warranted. The STRs including the April 2009 entrance examination and the March 2010 separation examination, did not show complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of a condition. Post-service treatment records do not show the development of a condition within one year after discharge from service. See e.g., October 2023 VA mental health outpatient treatment plan note (foot pain). The Veteran was evaluated in April 2024 during a VA examination. The examiner confirmed a diagnosis of BFF. The Veteran reported that he didn't remember the beginning of his BFF. He also reported that he never tried any treatment for his condition. He wore slippers all the time because any other shoe was painful. The examiner opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or worsened by military service. The examiner wrote "review of claims file is silent for any foot condition while in service and there is no chronicity of care noted. Service ended in 2010, and foot problems not noted until a decade later making his current foot conditions not likely due to service." The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contentions that his current BFF was worsened by service. The entrance examination did not document a diagnosis of BFF prior to service. Thus, the Board cannot conclude the condition existed prior to service. The Veteran is afforded the presumption of soundness. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b). Nonetheless, the STR do not complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of a condition while in service. Post-service treatment record did not show a diagnosis of a condition within one year after service. There was more than a 10-year gap between discharge from service and the diagnosis of the condition during the VA examination. The examiner did not support a nexus between the current condition and military service due to the lack of notation in the record and the lack of chronicity of care. There are no other opinions of record to contradict this finding. Accordingly, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for BFF have not been established, either through medical or lay evidence. There is no doubt to resolve. 38?U.S.C. §?5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1?Vet. App.?49 (1990). 3. Entitlement to service connection for BPF. The Veteran contends that he developed BPF while in service. On the June 2024 VA 21-526EZ, the Veteran wrote that his condition was secondary to BFF. The constant standing in walking in boots majority of the time on all types of different terrain. The July 2024 rating decision did not provide any favorable findings. The Veteran was scheduled for a VA examination to determine if he had a condition and if it was related to service or a service-connected disability. However, the Veteran failed to report to the examination and did not present good cause for missing the examination. When entitlement to a benefit cannot be established without a current VA examination or reexamination and a claimant, without good cause, fails to report for such examination or reexamination, an original claim for compensation is to be decided based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). When a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with any other original claim or a claim for increase, the claim shall be denied. Id. Examples of good cause include, but are not limited to, the illness or hospitalization of the claimant, or death of an immediate family member. Id. The Board emphasizes that the duty to assist and provide the Veteran with a VA examination is a two-way street, and his failure to complete the VA examination does not create a duty for VA to provide any additional examinations relating to this claim. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). The Board has reviewed the claims file and finds the Veteran has not submitted any argument or statements indicating a reason for why he did not attend the VA examination. An assessment for any possible condition cannot be conducted without proper examination. Therefore, the VA has no further obligation to remand the claim for a new VA examination to develop the claim. Moreover, the Board has reviewed the claims file, and the record does not include a diagnosis of BPF. Thus, the claim must be denied because the Veteran has not presented good cause for not attending the scheduled VA examination and the evidence of record does not show a current diagnosis. There is no doubt to resolve. 38?U.S.C. §?5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1?Vet. App.?49 (1990). MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Harris 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.