Citation Nr: 18140143 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-31 083 DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, there has been a continuity of the Veteran’s high blood pressure during and since service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a)(b), 3.304(d), 3.307(b), 3.309(a) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1985 to July 1989. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for hypertension due to his in-service high blood pressure readings. The record reflects a current diagnosis for hypertension. Hypertension is also considered chronic for VA purposes. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.309(a), 4.104. The Board notes that the criteria for presumptive service connection are not met. However, the Board finds that service connection is warranted based on the continuity of the Veteran’s symptoms (high blood pressure). 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) note high blood pressure. A July 1987 STR indicates blood pressure readings for 140/90 and 140/92, and the assessment was high blood pressure. The note also states that the Veteran had a history of increased blood pressure over the last few years. Where a condition that is considered chronic for VA purposes is noted during service (or in the presumptive period) is not, in fact, shown to be chronic, an analysis of continuity of symptomatology is required. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). For conditions recognized as chronic, a demonstration of continuity of symptomatology is an alternative method of demonstrating the second and/or third elements of service connection. See Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495-496 (1997). The July 1999 treatment report discussing the Veteran’s diagnosis for hypertension states that the Veteran was following up after having several readings (133/91 and 133/84) that indicate early hypertension. The Board notes that the Veteran had similar readings in service. An April 1989 STR indicates blood pressure of 130/82 and 138/74. As discussed, the Veteran also had higher blood pressure readings during service (140/92), which were also indicated as high blood pressure. The Veteran has also stated that his hypertension was misdiagnosed in service. Although the Veteran has not explained this assertion, given the similarity between his blood pressure readings during service and at the time of his 1999 diagnosis for hypertension, the Board construes the Veteran’s assertions to be that the readings in service should have been diagnosed as hypertension. Without making a medical determination as to whether the Veteran was misdiagnosed in service, the Board makes a factual determination that the Veteran had high blood pressure during service and in 1999 when diagnosed with hypertension. In reaching this conclusion, the Board defers to the July 1987 in-service examiner’s and July 1999 private examiner’s assessments that the Veteran’s readings were high. As the Board has conceded that the Veteran had high blood pressure in service and at the time of his 1999 diagnosis for hypertension, the remaining issue is whether the Veteran had continuous high blood pressure up to his 1999 diagnosis. There are no blood pressure readings of record between 1989 and 1999 to establish or negate that the Veteran’s blood pressure remained elevated in the years between discharge and the 1999 diagnosis for hypertension. The Board therefore finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise. Resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the Veteran’s symptoms (high blood pressure) were continuous in the years between discharge and his diagnosis for hypertension. As continuity of symptomatology has been established, service connection for hypertension is warranted. Accordingly, the appeal is granted. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Smith, Associate Counsel