Flat Feet Claim Denied: Read the Entry Exam and Aggravation Findings

A flat-feet (pes planus) denial usually turns on one of three findings: VA says the condition existed before service, VA says it did not get worse in service beyond its natural course, or VA treats it as a congenital defect it does not compensate. Each finding depends on specific records, starting with what the examiner wrote on your entrance exam. Find which finding your decision relies on before you gather more evidence.

The entrance exam comes first. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b), "only such conditions as are recorded in examination reports are to be considered as noted." A history of foot trouble written down at entry "does not constitute a notation" of the condition, though VA still weighs it with the other evidence. When flat feet were not noted at entry, VA can overcome the presumption that you entered service sound only with "clear and unmistakable" evidence that the condition existed before service and was not aggravated by it. You do not have to prove your feet were perfect before service.

If the entrance exam noted flat feet

The question becomes whether the condition increased in disability during service. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.306, an increase in disability during service is treated as aggravation unless there is a specific finding that it was due to the condition's natural progress, and for wartime or post-1946 service VA needs clear and unmistakable evidence to rebut that presumption. If the evidence shows no increase in severity, aggravation is not conceded. A sick-call visit for foot pain is relevant, but the record needs context: the baseline at entry, what changed in service, and what happened afterward.

If the entrance exam was normal but a medical-history form says "foot trouble," the noted-condition branch should not apply. Compare the exam finding with the standard VA used, and copy the exact passage if VA treated a history as a formal notation. An accredited representative can help with a disputed application of the soundness rule.

If VA called your flat feet congenital

VA does not pay for a congenital defect by itself. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.9, "mere congenital or developmental defects" are not diseases or injuries for compensation, and § 4.57 says congenital flatfoot with no abnormal callosities, pressure areas, strain or tenderness is "not compensable." A disability added on top of the defect can still be service connected. In Board decision A25023044, March 12, 2025, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the Board) cited VA General Counsel opinion VAOPGCPREC 82-90 for the rule that service connection may be awarded for a congenital defect "subject to, or aggravated by, a superimposed disease or injury in service," and granted service connection for an infantryman's congenital pes planus. One VA examiner linked the worsening to training, running, marching and carrying a heavy pack; another said it was clearly not aggravated; the Board found the opinions evenly balanced and resolved the doubt in the veteran's favor. Whether your condition is congenital or acquired is a medical question for a clinician, not something to judge from the shape of your arch.

The flat-feet condition guide covers the rating criteria; this page stays with the service-connection denial.

A fictional notice with two different possibilities

Fictional example: "The entrance examination noted bilateral pes planus. Service treatment records document foot pain during training. The medical opinion found no lasting increase beyond the condition's natural course." Copy the entrance finding and the opinion's reasoning. Did the examiner explain the records from before, during and after service, or only restate a conclusion?

Now change one fact: the entrance exam says "feet normal," while a history form reports past foot pain. The soundness analysis changes, and a denial that treats the history as an exam notation deserves a careful comparison with § 3.304(b). Neither example predicts an outcome.

A real remand: the entry finding against a later service record

In Board decision A25094673, October 31, 2025, the November 2012 entrance exam recorded mild, asymptomatic flat feet, and a 2015 service treatment record described the condition as severe. The VA examiner nevertheless wrote that the service records were "silent regarding the claimed condition" and found no evidence of progression, without addressing the later finding.

The Board found the opinion inadequate and remanded the flat-feet issue for a clinician to answer two questions: whether the condition increased in severity during service and, if it did, whether that increase was clearly and unmistakably due to natural progression. The Board did not grant service connection. The useful lesson is the missing comparison, not that the words "mild" and "severe" guarantee an award. This case involved flat feet actually noted at entry; it does not decide the case where the exam was normal and only the history form mentioned symptoms. If the soundness error happened in an old decision that is already final, the bar is much higher: in this Board case on pes planus, a veteran showed VA had misapplied the presumption of soundness and still lost a clear and unmistakable error motion.

Entry-exam and change worksheet

Include records that complicate your account. A period without treatment does not automatically defeat a claim, but a clinician may need to address it. Describe how duty affected walking, standing and treatment accurately, without diagnosing yourself.

Flat-feet appeals in Claim Raven's data

In Claim Raven's analysis of 2024 to 2025 Board decisions, flat feet were a decided issue in 903 condition records: 37.2% favorable, 44.9% denied and 17.9% remanded. Among 280 denied flat-feet records with a classified reason, 35.4% were denied because the severity criteria were not met, 27.9% because service connection was not shown, 12.5% for procedural or timeliness reasons and 9.3% for no current diagnosis. The label mixes service-connection and rating issues, and these are appeals of already-disputed claims, so the figures describe patterns, not your odds. Claim Raven's study of aggravation claims at the Board looks at the aggravation route across conditions.

After the comparison

If you located an entrance or service record VA did not have, that is new evidence for a Supplemental Claim. If the record was already in the file and VA misapplied the noted-condition or aggravation rule, a Higher-Level Review looks at the same record. Check your letter and VA's decision review FAQ for the deadline. The no-nexus denial guide covers the broader question of which evidence answers a missing-link finding.

Raven Eye, a Claim Raven tool offered on this page, can find the passage where VA applied the soundness or aggravation rule and explain it beside the original. Claim Raven sells it; it does not classify a foot deformity or decide whether VA applied the law correctly.

Sources and scope

Checked September 23, 2026: 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b), § 3.306, § 4.9 and § 4.57 (eCFR, current through August 27, 2026); VA's decision review pages linked above; and Board decisions A25094673 and A25023044. This is a record-reading framework, not a finding that any veteran's feet worsened because of service.