Citation Nr: 18154987 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 14-09 502 DATE: December 4, 2018 ORDER Service connection for hypertension is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hypertension did not begin in service, was not manifest within the first post-service year, and is unrelated to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 1137, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from November 1973 to August 1980 with additional service in the Louisiana Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. He served honorably and the Board thanks the Veteran for his service to our country. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2011 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was previously before the Board in March 2016 when it was remanded for further development, to include so that any outstanding medical records could be associated with the claims file. In March 2017, the RO granted service connection for migraines and as a result there is no longer a claim or controversy for the Board to address regarding migraines and it is not for consideration in this decision. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires evidence showing: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated in service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and an evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999). 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). Certain chronic diseases (such as hypertension) will be presumed to have been incurred in service if manifested to a compensable degree of at least 10 percent disabling within one year after service. 38 U.S.C. § 1101, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.307, 3.309(a). A disability that is not chronic may be service connected if seen in service with continuity of symptomatology demonstrated after discharge. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Secondary service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 U.S.C. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence of (1) a current chronic disability for which service connection is sought; (2) an already service-connected disability; and (3) that the disability for which service connection is sought was either (a) caused or (b) aggravated by the already service-connected disability. See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). VA treatment records during the pendency of this appeal, to include in January 2012, show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hypertension. While the Veteran was on active duty for training in June 1984, he suffered a cerebrovascular accident (CVA), and he is currently service-connected for CVA residuals. The record reflects that the Veteran has made various contentions with regard to the onset of his hypertension. He reported to a VA examiner in March 2000 that he has had hypertension since approximately 1978. He has also reported in November 1999 that he was first diagnosed with hypertension by a private physician, Dr. W.S. He stated that he began seeing Dr. W.S. in 1980 or 1981. At his hearing, the Veteran testified that the onset or diagnosis of hypertension was after June 1984 (the month of his CVA). See hearing transcript p. 16. Due to the inconsistencies in the Veteran’s statements with regard to the onset of hypertension, his statements as to onset of hypertension lack credibility. At the hearing, the Veteran’s representative also suggested that service connection for hypertension was warranted on a secondary basis, noting that the Veteran was “currently service connected for, a heart condition, a – a valve. We’ll just say CAV.” The Board takes these statements to assert the contention that hypertension is secondary to the Veteran’s service-connected CVA. His representative also noted that there were statements in VA decisions in the record noting that hypertension began in 1978; however, the representative acknowledged that “I see no medical evidence, see no citing of any medical evidence at all anywhere in the file of any kind of diagnosis of [hypertension] in 1978.” The Board notes that the Veteran reported to a VA examiner in March 2000 that he had hypertension “for at least twenty[-]two years.” This would equate to a 1978 timeframe. The March 2000 examiner noted that “[t]here are no records available for review,” so this statement was clearly based solely on the Veteran’s statements. To the extent the Veteran suggests that service connection is warranted on the basis of aggravation, the presumption of soundness attached with respect to hypertension when the Veteran’s active service began in November 1973. When the Veteran enlisted in the Army in 1973, hypertension was not noted by the medical examiner and the Veteran affirmatively indicated that he did not have high blood pressure. This presumption has not been rebutted. The presumption of soundness generally does not attach to periods of active duty training or inactive duty training. Additional service treatment records (STRs), to include from 1978 and the Veteran’s separation medical examination from his period of active duty, have been found by VA to be unavailable. The Veteran sought to produce medical records from his private physician to corroborate his contentions, but the physician had passed away and his records were no longer available. Further attempts to produce private treatment records from different providers showed they were lost in Hurricane Katrina. The medical evidence is clear that the Veteran had hypertension prior to his CVA in 1984. STRs dated in June 1984 developed in connection with his CVA reflect that he was taking medication for high blood pressure prior to his CVA. His condition was known to his section sergeant who wrote a statement to that effect after the CVA occurred. However, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that hypertension had its onset in service or that service connection is warranted on a presumptive basis. There is nothing in the record, other than the Veteran’s statements which have been found to lack credibility, which indicates that hypertension began during a period of active duty or active duty for training or that hypertension was first manifest to a compensable degree within a year of the Veteran’s August 1980 separation from service. Further, the evidence does not suggest, and the Veteran has not asserted, that service connection for hypertension is warranted on the basis of continuity of symptomatology. In addition, there is no competent medical evidence in the record linking the Veteran’s current diagnosis of hypertension to service or a service-connected disability. Further development, to include a VA examination and/or a medical opinion is not warranted as there is nothing to indicate that the Veteran’s hypertension was caused or aggravated by service or his service-connected CVA. As noted above, contemporaneous medical records developed at the time of the CVA reflect that hypertension pre-existed the CVA. STRs at the time of the CVA note that the Veteran had high blood pressure, the Veteran was aware he had high blood pressure, and the Veteran was taking medication for high blood pressure when he had the CVA. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Fales, Associate Counsel