Citation Nr: 18157501 Decision Date: 12/12/18 Archive Date: 12/12/18 DOCKET NO. 15-46 330 DATE: December 12, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, claimed as high blood pressure, is denied. FINDING OF FACT There is no credible evidence in the record demonstrating the onset of hypertension during service or within a year of separation, that hypertension was continuous since service, and there is no evidence of a nexus between the Veteran’s current hypertension and his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307(a), 3.309(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1960 to October 1963. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, claimed as a high blood pressure disability The Veteran contends that his high blood pressure, or hypertension is connected to his active duty service. 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(a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of 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 of a nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 252-53 (1999). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Certain chronic diseases, to include hypertension, will be presumed related to service if they were noted as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if continuity of the same symptomatology has existed since service, with no intervening cause. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258 (2015); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a). The Veteran’s VA treatment records reflect a diagnosis of hypertension during the pendency of this claim; he is treated for hypertension with medication. However, there is no indication in the Veteran’s service treatment records of treatment for or diagnosis of hypertension during service. The Veteran has contended that his hypertension began during service, and that he was told by his doctor during his separation exam that he had high blood pressure. The Veteran further contends that he had to sign a waiver during his separation exam regarding his hypertension. Although the Veteran is competent to make these statements, the Board does not afford the statements significant probative weight. There is no evidence in the record of a waiver regarding the Veteran’s hypertension. Furthermore, in the Veteran’s separation exam, the Veteran explicitly denied issues with high or low blood pressure. The clinical evaluation of all systems was normal and no defects were noted. Although the Veteran is competent to state that his doctor told him he had high blood pressure, the Board does not afford the statement probative weight without the statement from the doctor providing reasons and bases for the doctor’s conclusion. The contemporaneous separation examination report does not indicate a diagnosis of hypertension. Additionally, there is no evidence of hypertension within the first year after the Veteran separated from service. The Board is aware of the case of McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), which held that an examination is required when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran’s service; and (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim. A VA medical opinion addressing whether the Veteran’s current high blood pressure disability is related to the Veteran’s service on a direct basis is unnecessary in this case. The evidence is against a finding that the Veteran experienced an in-service “event, injury or disease” as required by McLendon element (2) to support his service-connection claim. Furthermore, there is no indication that the Veteran’s current disability is associated with the Veteran’s service because there is insufficient credible evidence in the record. See also Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010) (finding that VA is not required to provide a medical examination when there is not credible evidence of an event, injury, or disease in service). As the weight of the evidence does not demonstrate that hypertension had its onset in service or within one year after separation, that it was continuous since service or a nexus between the current disability and the Veteran’s service, service connection for a hypertension, claimed as high blood pressure disability, is not warranted. K. J. Alibrando Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David M. Sebstead, Associate Counsel