10-14 973, 10-14 973

Veteran served in the U.S. Air Force from Dec 1986 to Apr 1995 and sought VA service connection for chronic, painful pubic hair bumps (claimed as pelvic hair bumps).
Service treatment records (STRs) document multiple in-service treatments for furuncle/folliculitis and painful ingrown hair follicles between 1987 and 1992; no separation exam was performed in 1995.
Post-service VA and private records show extensive gynecological care but contain no current diagnosis explicitly linking a present disability to folliculitis or furuncle.
Veteran reports recurring painful pubic hair bumps (about twice monthly) since service and manages flares conservatively; she reported flares but declined the physical portion of the April 2016 VA exam because she had no active bumps at that visit.
Board remanded for development and obtained a 2016 VA examination; examiner found no current diagnosis because no lesions were observed and the veteran refused the physical exam portion.
Board found the veteran’s lay testimony credible, concluded symptoms began in service and continued post-service, applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, and granted service connection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether service connection for disability manifested by pubic hair bumps is warranted	Veteran contends painful pubic hair bumps began in service, recur regularly, and persist post-service	VA medical records and 2016 VA exam show no current diagnosis; absence of contemporaneous post-service diagnosis argues against service connection	Granted: credible lay statements + in-service STRs establish continuity of symptomatology; benefit of the doubt applied

Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (remand duties must be followed and development completed)
Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (2000) (Board must provide adequate statement of reasons or bases)
Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (Board need not discuss every piece of evidence but must address material favorable evidence)
Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995) (Board must assess credibility and probative value of evidence)
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990) (standard for weighing evidence when deciding claims)
Conway v. Principi, 353 F.3d 1369 (2004) (VCAA notice and assistance principles; prejudice standard)
Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (2004) (elements for service connection)
Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994) (competence of lay testimony on onset and continuity of symptoms)
Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (2009) (when lay evidence can establish diagnosis or etiology)
Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007) (competence of lay testimony regarding medical conditions)
Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011) (limits on lay competency depending on complexity of medical issues)
Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006) (lay assertions may be credible even without contemporaneous medical evidence)