Citation Nr: 18157403 Decision Date: 12/13/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 17-05 370 DATE: December 13, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for allergic rhinitis is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for allergic rhinitis are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1985 to March 1989. The Veteran contends that exposure to respiratory irritants during service resulted in her allergic rhinitis. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of allergic rhinitis that is related to service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). A December 1988 service treatment record notation reported that the Veteran had a possible allergic reaction. The March 2015 VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis was less likely as not related to service. The rationale for his medical opinion was that service treatment records were absent for allergic rhinitis diagnosis or treatment. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s symptoms during service in December 1988 were not consistent with allergic rhinitis, but rather were the result of an acute allergic reaction. In a December 2016 addendum opinion, the March 2015 VA examiner elaborated that if the Veteran’s condition was caused by working conditions while on active duty, then she would have developed symptoms during service and have been treated and diagnosed with allergic rhinitis. He again pointed to the absence of evidence of allergic rhinitis during and immediately following service in furtherance of his negative nexus opinion. In a January 2016 letter, the Veteran’s private doctor opined that the Veteran’s exposure to secondhand smoke during service caused the gradual development of allergic rhinitis. In his opinion, since the Veteran had no known exposure to other risk factors that may have caused or contributed to her allergic rhinitis and cigarette smoke is a known carcinogen, he opined that her allergic rhinitis was at least as likely as not related to service. In contrast to the VA examiner, he interpreted the December 1988 service treatment record notation as documenting symptoms of allergic rhinitis during service. In this case, the Board finds that both medical opinions constitute competent, probative, and persuasive evidence that is based on review of the documented medical history and the Veteran’s assertions. Both examiners provided rationales based on a discussion of the evidence of record. Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444 (2000); Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467 (1993). Clearly, there is a difference of opinion between these two medical professionals regarding the presence of symptoms of allergic rhinitis during the Veteran’s service. This difference has led them to reach opposite conclusions regarding the onset and development of the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis. In a claim for VA benefits, an appellant need only demonstrate that there is an “approximate balance of positive and negative evidence” in order to prevail. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990). Entitlement need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt, by clear and convincing evidence, or by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Under the benefit of the doubt doctrine, when the evidence is in “relative equipoise,” the law dictates that the claimant prevails. Id. As a result, the Board finds that the competent, probative medical opinion evidence is, at least, in relative equipoise with regard to the matter of whether service connection is warranted for allergic rhinitis. Based on the foregoing, the medical expert evidence of record is in relative equipoise as to the etiology of the Veteran’s allergic rhinitis. To the extent that there is any reasonable doubt as to this inquiry, that doubt is resolved in the Veteran’s favor. Accordingly, with resolution of reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, service connection for allergic rhinitis is granted. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Dellarco, Associate Counsel