Citation Nr: 18146415
Decision Date: 10/31/18	Archive Date: 10/31/18

DOCKET NO. 15-25 946
DATE:	October 31, 2018
ORDER
Service connection for hepatitis C is granted.
FINDING OF FACT
The Veteran's hepatitis C is related to service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for hepatitis C have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active duty from April 1972 to August 1975.   
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Huntington, West Virginia. 
In October 2018, the Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned.
This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2017).  38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2) (2012).
1. Hepatitis C
The Board finds that service connection for hepatitis C is warranted.  Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability).  See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).
In this case, the evidence shows that the Veteran has had hepatitis C, initially diagnosed in 1996, throughout the appeal period.  See, e.g., VA examination (December 2014). 
As to in-service risk factors for hepatitis C, the Veteran his consistently reported that during service he pricked with a hypodermic needle and that he received a tattoo on his forearm.  See Board hearing (October 2018); VA examination (December 2014); Risk Factor Questionnaire (November 2013).  A comparison of entrance and separation examinations confirm that he received a tattoo in service.
In December 2014, a VA examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s hepatitis C was incurred in service.  The rationale was that the Veteran’s major risk factors included intravenous drug use.  The examiner acknowledged the Veteran’s in-service tattoo and that hepatitis C could have been contracted from the tattooing process.  In an addendum opinion dated May 2015, the same examiner opined that an opinion regarding etiology of Veteran’s hepatitis C could not be rendered without resorting to mere speculation.
Thus, the Board finds credible that the Veteran was exposed to several risk factors in service for developing hepatitis C and has been diagnosed as having the disease.  In light of the foregoing, and resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that service connection is warranted.

 
STEVEN D. REISS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	Joshua Castillo, Counsel