Citation Nr: 18152050 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/20/18 DOCKET NO. 13-29 186 DATE: November 20, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for migraines is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, her migraine headache disability began during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for migraines have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1987 to March 1991. This matter originally came before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Diego, California. In July 2017 the Board remanded the appeal to the RO for additional development. The case is once again before the Board. SERVICE CONNECTION Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1101, 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303. To establish service connection there must be evidence showing (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship or nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. See Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1, 8 (1999). In evaluating the evidence, the Board has the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 1. Entitlement to service connection for migraines The Veteran asserts that her migraine headaches began shortly after April 1989 due to noise from jets and helicopters. She has submitted lay statements indicating that she suffered from migraine headaches while on active duty. In this case, the existence of a current disability is not in question. The Veteran was diagnosed with migraine headaches during the appeal period by her private physician and there is no evidence suggesting that a migraine headache disability does not exist. The Board remanded the Veteran’s claim in July 2017, in part, to obtain her service treatment records. In October 2018, the Veteran was informed that her service treatment records from 1989 to 1991 could not be located. However, as discussed above, the record includes multiple lay statements which document that her headaches developed while on active duty. These statements include a September 2013 letter from P.Z. who reported that he was stationed with the Veteran while she was on active duty, and that she experienced migraine headaches and would have to leave work. Based on the missing service treatment records, and the competent and credible lay statements, the Board finds that an in-service injury or disease has been established. The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination to determine the etiology of her headache disability. As noted above, she has repeatedly stated that her headaches began while on active duty and have continued to the present. As a lay person the Veteran is competent to report experiencing headaches and the Board finds her statements credible. Moreover, the Veteran has submitted multiple lay statements from friends and family describing a similar medical history for headaches. Medical evidence is not always or categorically required in every instance to establish a medical nexus between the claimed disability and the Veteran’s active duty service. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d at 1316. That is, lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence to establish etiology. Id. Here, the Veteran’s competent lay statements contending her migraines began in, thus are attributable too, her active duty service are taken in conjunction with her spouse and co-worker lay statements; all of which are observable and do not require medical expertise. Therefore, even though the first recorded diagnosis of a headache disability in the claims file was from after the Veteran separated from service, service connection is still warranted because competent and credible evidence shows her migraines began in service and continued to the present. Moreover, the Board notes that there is no evidence in the claims file which suggests that the Veteran’s headache disability is not related to her active duty service. In reaching all the conclusions stated above, the Board considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. Since the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, the Veteran prevails and service connection for migraine headaches is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5170 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55-57. M. Donohue Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Vaughn, Associate Counsel