Citation Nr: 18155204 Decision Date: 12/04/18 Archive Date: 12/03/18 DOCKET NO. 16-57 371 DATE: December 4, 2018 ORDER Service connection for sleep apnea is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s sleep apnea was not incurred in or due to his time in service nor is it proximately due to any of his service connected disabilities. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the establishment of service connection for sleep apnea, to include as secondary to service connected disabilities, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from February 2004 to June 2004, from September 2005 to March 2007, and from August 2009 to November 2010. Generally, to prevail on a claim of service connection on the merits, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) medical evidence or other competent evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To establish service connection on a secondary basis, the evidence must show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a)(b) (2016), Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995) (en banc). The Veteran contends his sleep apnea is due to his time in service or is proximately due to his acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran has stated he did not have sleep problems prior to his time in service and noticed sleep apnea symptoms during and after his deployment in 2010. The Board notes the Veteran currently has a diagnosis of sleep apnea. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) are negative for mention of any sleep related problems while in service. The Veteran’s exit examination and his post-deployment health assessments, including the one in December 2010, do not show any sleep problems. Additionally, the Veteran’s record is negative for a link between the Veteran’s current sleep apnea diagnosis and his psychiatric disorder. The Veteran had an examination for his sleep apnea in October 2016. The examiner opined the Veteran’s sleep apnea was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran’s service connected disabilities. The examiner explained the Veteran has obstructive sleep apnea, which is a mechanical physiological problem and not a psychogenic problem, like central sleep apnea. The examiner opined the Veteran’s untreated sleep apnea more likely than not contributed to the Veteran’s PTSD, rather than sleep apnea being caused by the Veteran’s PTSD. Therefore, because the evidence does not show the Veteran’s sleep apnea was incurred in or due to his time in service and it is not proximately due to a service connected disability, the claim must be denied. Regarding the claim above, the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s statements that he did not report his sleep apnea while in service because he was afraid they would medically retire him if he was found to have a medical condition. However, the Veteran’s December 2010 post-deployment assessment shows the Veteran noted he had several medical conditions such as coughing lasting more than three weeks, muscle aches, swollen joints, trouble hearing, ringing in ears, and a skin condition. It would not appear to be reasonable for the Veteran to cite these problems, but then hide other issues. Simply stated, the best evidence in this case does not support the Veteran’s recollection of events, suggesting that the Veteran did, in fact, report problems that he had in service. In any event, the Veteran is not competent to opine on medical issues, such as the nature and etiology of his sleep apnea. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Board places more probative weight on the objective medical evidence of record. (Continued on the next page)   It is important for the Veteran to understand that these medical findings provide highly probative evidence against this claim that the Board cannot, unfortunately, ignore, outweighing the Veteran’s belief that this problem is the result of service, providing a highly clear basis for the opinion. Regarding all the above, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. §5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57(1990). John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Snoparsky, Associate Counsel