Citation Nr: 18144309 Decision Date: 10/24/18 Archive Date: 10/24/18 DOCKET NO. 15-15 944 DATE: October 24, 2018 ORDER Service connection for sleep apnea is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s sleep apnea was incurred in and due to his time in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for sleep apnea are met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from August 1981 to August 2005. Generally, to prevail on a claim of service connection on the merits, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) medical evidence or other competent evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Evidence of continuity of symptomatology from the time of service until the present is required where the chronicity of a chronic condition manifested during service either has not been established or might reasonably be questioned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). The Veteran contends he has sleep apnea that was incurred in and due to his time in service and his symptoms from service have continued to the present. (See March 2012 statement.) Additionally, the Veteran contends he brought up his sleep problems with multiple doctors while in service but was not sent for a sleep study to determine a diagnosis while in service. (See February 2012 statement.) The Veteran was diagnosed in 2012 with sleep apnea. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) show he was seen for increased snoring while in service. (See August 2005 treatment notes.) Additionally, the Veteran has submitted buddy statements from fellow service members. Both service members were roommates with the Veteran during his time in service. Both service members noted the Veteran’s loud snoring, his daytime fatigue, and the fact that he would often stop breathing at night. Both service members also reported feeling worried about the Veteran’s sleep problems and remember waking him up at night due to his stoppage in breathing. (See May and October 2013 statements.) The Veteran’s spouse also submitted a statement in November 2013, saying since their marriage in 1985, she had observed the Veteran’s loud snoring, his breathing stoppage and night and the Veteran’s daytime fatigue. The Veteran’s spouse stated these symptoms have continued from 1985 to the present. The Veteran was afforded an examination in February 2013. The examiner opined the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea and therefore, no opinion could be offered as to whether the Veteran’s sleep apnea was incurred in or due to his time in service. However, a November 2013 letter from one of the Veteran’s doctors opined the Veteran had suffered from sleep apnea since his separation from service. The examiner explained the Veteran’s symptoms from service had increased in severity. (Continued on the next page)   While one examiner opined the Veteran’s sleep apnea was not incurred in or due to his time in service, one examiner opined the Veteran’s sleep apnea symptoms began in service and have continued to the present. Additionally, the Board finds the Veteran had symptoms of sleep apnea which began in service and have continued to present. There is significant evidence on this point. The Board finds the statements about the Veteran’s continuing sleep apnea symptoms by the Veteran, the Veteran’s fellow service members, and the Veteran’s spouse to be competent and credible. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Granting the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran, the claim will be granted on the basis of continuity of symptomatology. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57(1990). John Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Snoparsky, Associate Counsel