Citation Nr: 18153921 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 16-19 012A DATE: November 28, 2018 ORDER Service connection for diabetes is denied. Service connection for allergic rhinitis is denied. Service connection for a headache disorder is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for duodenal ulcer disease is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Diabetes, allergic rhinitis, and a headache disorder were not shown in service and the weight of the evidence is against a finding that any of these conditions were related to or caused by his active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for diabetes have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 3. The criteria for service connection for a headache disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the Army from January 1971 to December 1972. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), where a condition in service is noted but is not, in fact, chronic, or where a diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. The continuity of symptomatology provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) has been interpreted as an alternative to service connection only for the specific chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection may also be established with certain chronic diseases based upon a legal presumption by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more within one year from the date of separation from service. Such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). While the disease need not be diagnosed within the presumption period, it must be shown, by acceptable lay or medical evidence, that there were characteristic manifestations of the disease to the required degree during that time. The Veteran filed his service connection claim for diabetes in April 2015, which was denied by a June 2015 rating decision. He filed his service connection claims for allergic rhinitis and a headache disorder in June 2017, which were denied by an August 2017 rating decision. The Veteran asserts that his diabetes, allergic rhinitis, and headache disorder are due to his active service. There is no objective evidence of record that links the Veteran’s current diabetes, hypertension, or prostate disorder to his active service. STRs do not show a diagnosis of diabetes, allergic rhinitis, or headaches during his service. Furthermore, the Veteran STRs show that he had normal physicals at his December 1970 entrance examination and his August 1972 separation examination. Regarding diabetes, medical records after his service show that he denied having diabetes in January 2004. The first evidence of diabetes is not until a December 2011 blood test that met the criteria for diabetes, almost four decades after his separation from service. Regarding allergic rhinitis, medical records after his service show that he was first diagnosed with allergic rhinitis in February 1986, over a decade after his separation from service. Regarding a headache disorder, medical records after his service show that he first complained of a chronic headache in September 2005, over three decades after his separation from service. As described, the record contains no diagnosis of diabetes, allergic rhinitis, or a headache disorder either in service or within one year after service, which would preclude service connection on the basis of continuity of symptomology or on any presumptive basis. The Veteran has not argued to the contrary. There is also no medical evidence even suggesting the possibility of a link between the Veteran’s current diabetes, allergic rhinitis, or headache disorder and his active service. See Shedden, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167. Thus, there is no basis for service connection on a direct or presumptive basis. The criteria for service connection for diabetes, allergic rhinitis, and a headache disorder have not been met, and the Veteran’s claims are denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Regarding the Veterans increased rating claim for duodenal ulcer disease, the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination for his duodenal ulcer disease in June 2015. In hi May 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran reported symptoms such as pain, periodic vomiting, and weight loss, which reflects that his duodenal ulcer disease had worsened. As such, the Veteran should be provided new VA examinations. Regarding the Veteran’s service connection claim for hypertension, he asserts that his hypertension is secondary to his service-connected duodenal ulcer disease. The Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine if his service-connected duodenal ulcer disease is causing or aggravating his hypertension. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his service-connected duodenal ulcer disease. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the etiology of his hypertension. The examiner should offer the following opinions: a. Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s hypertension was caused by a service connected disability? Why or why not? b. Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s hypertension was aggravated by a service connected disability? Why or why not? If aggravation is found, the examiner should identify a baseline level of severity of the Veteran’s hypertension by medical evidence created before the onset of aggravation or by the earliest medical evidence created at any time between the onset of aggravation and the receipt of medical evidence establishing the current level of severity of the hypertension. If such cannot be done, it should be explained why. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Berryman, Counsel