Citation Nr: 18153000 Decision Date: 11/27/18 Archive Date: 11/26/18 DOCKET NO. 18-29 068 DATE: November 27, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s migraine headache cannot be satisfactorily disassociated from active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 2004 through April 2004, from July 2008 through July 2009, from August 2011 through December 2012, from December 2012 through January 2014, and from November 2015 through September 2016. This case is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 rating decision. 1. Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches. The Veteran asserts that her migraine headache disability was incurred during active duty service. Upon review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s migraine headaches were incurred in service. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty or for aggravation of preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). Generally, to establish service connection, there must be lay or medical evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service, and (3) a nexus between the in-service injury or disease and the current disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2017). It is the Board’s responsibility to determine whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the claim or whether the evidence is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether there is a preponderance of evidence against the claim, in which case the claim must be denied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. By reasonable doubt is meant one which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2017). The Veteran reports that her migraine headaches began in 2008, when she was stationed in Iraq. The Veteran explained that after she returned home she started self-medicating with sleeping pills and that the condition did not get worse again until 2012. In 2012, the Veteran was on active duty service while participating in the Interservice Physician Assistant Program. During that period, she was involved in two car accidents in May and November 2012. She specifically explained that the May 2012 accident made her headache condition much worse as she was riding a motorcycle, but wearing a helmet at the time. The Veteran again self-medicated until March 2015 because she was afraid that her headache condition would lead to her removal from the program. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in May 2017. The examiner was only asked to provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s condition, which was deemed to have preexisted service, was aggravated by service. The question the examiner was asked to address assumed that the Veteran’s condition preexisted service, but the record does not establish that the headache disability clearly and unmistakably pre-existed service. The examiner was not asked to render an opinion as to the etiology of the Veteran’s migraine headache problem and thus did not address the Veteran’s complaints of headaches in 2008 and May 2012. Further the examiner did not evaluate the Veteran’s migraine headache condition in light of two car accidents the Veteran was involved in while in service in May and November of 2012. Upon review of all the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for headaches is warranted. The Veteran asserts that her headaches began in-service in 2008, and she points to specific in-service instances that led to a worsening of the condition. Headaches are capable of lay observation; thus, she is competent to provide lay evidence of headaches and the onset thereof. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (non-expert witnesses are competent to report that which they have observed with their own senses). Moreover, there is no reason to doubt her credibility in this regard. Finally, she has a current diagnosis of migraine headaches. As such, and resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that the Veteran’s headache disability cannot be satisfactorily disassociated from her active service connection, and therefore service connection for a headache disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2012). L. B. CRYAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Shelton, Law Clerk