Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is remanded.

Citation Nr: A26069924 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 220616-251405 DATE: July 30, 2026 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 2000 to May 2007. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2022 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In the June 2022 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On October 29, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2022 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran her or representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 20.801. However, because the Board is remanding the claim of entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). Allergic rhinitis is remanded. The Veteran contends that her allergic rhinitis had its onset during service. The Veteran was seen in service in June 2003 and October 2003 for symptoms of a stuffy nose. The Veteran's entrance examination is silent for allergic rhinitis, however her separation examination notes asthma and allergies. Compare May 2000 examination and May 2007 examination. In a June 2007 examination the Veteran was noted to have had allergies for the past 25 years, which would indicate the Veteran's condition pre-existed service. However, this notation is inconsistent with the Veteran's entrance examination. In January 2022 the Veteran was afforded a VA examination which determined that the Veteran's condition "less likely than not" pre-existed service. Unfortunately, this is the wrong standard. A veteran is presumed to have been sound upon entry into the military, except as to conditions noted at the time of the acceptance, examination, or enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the condition existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1111; Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The presumption of soundness applies only when a disease or injury not noted upon entry to service manifests in service, and a question arises as to whether it preexisted service. Gilbert v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 48, 55 (2012), aff'd 749 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The burden falls on VA to rebut the presumption of soundness by clear and unmistakable evidence that an injury or disease manifested in service was both preexisting and not aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1111; Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d at 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Clear and unmistakable evidence means that the evidence cannot be misinterpreted and misunderstood, i.e., it is undebatable. Quirin v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 390, 396 (2009). Clear and unmistakable evidence can consist of the veteran's own admissions of a preservice disability. Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 237 (2012). If there is clear and unmistakable evidence to show that the veteran's disability was both preexisting and not aggravated by service, then the veteran is not entitled to service-connected benefits for the preexisting condition. Wagner, 370 F.3d at 1096. Accordingly, the Board finds that the January 2022 VA examination is inadequate because it used the wrong standard to determine whether the Veteran's condition pre-existed service. Further there is no indication the examiner asked the Veteran when her condition had its onset. In February 2022, the Veteran was afforded another VA examination to determine whether the Veteran's rhinitis was aggravated by service. The VA examiner determined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's rhinitis was permanently aggravated because the record fails to support the permanent worsening. However, the VA examiner failed to address the fact that the Veteran did not report allergies on her entrance examination and was seen twice in service for rhinitis. Further the Veteran has complained since service that her rhinitis has worsened since service. As such the Board finds that this VA examination is likewise inadequate because it is not based on sufficient relevant facts specific to the Veteran. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (stating that "The Board must be able to conclude that a medical expert has applied valid medical analysis to the significant facts of the particular case in order to reach the conclusion submitted in the medical opinion."). The AOJ's failure to provide the Veteran with an adequate examination constitutes a pre-decisional duty to assist error requiring a remand to correct. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for the allergic rhinitis. The examiner must review the claims file. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran's condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a "disability" for the purpose of providing the requested opinions below. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: (a.) Did the Veteran's allergic rhinitis clearly and unmistakably (undebatable) preexist the Veteran's service? (b.) If the examiner finds that the Veteran's allergic rhinitis did clearly and unmistakably preexist service, was it clearly and unmistakably not aggravated by service? (c.) If the examiner finds that the Veteran's allergic rhinitis either did not clearly and unmistakably preexist service or was not clearly and unmistakably not aggravated by service, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to service, including whether it had its onset during service. Provide a rationale to support the opinions. In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of the in-service injury and symptoms as well as post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of the current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about the symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. M. Gallino, 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.