Citation Nr: 18101596 Decision Date: 05/08/18 Archive Date: 05/07/18 DOCKET NO. 14-27 863A DATE: May 8, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, he has experienced continuity of symptomatology related to hypertension since his separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hypertension are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1137, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(b), 3.309(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran has unverified active service dated from August 1975 to December 1975, and verified active service dated from September 1976 to May 1978 and November 1978 to November 1982. The Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in March 2018. A transcript is of record. Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection can be demonstrated for a disease diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Alternatively, continuity of symptomatology may be established if a claimant can demonstrate: (1) that a condition was “noted” during service; (2) evidence of post-service continuity of the same symptomatology; and (3) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the post-service symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Where a claimant asserts entitlement to a chronic condition but there is insufficient evidence of a diagnosis in service, he can establish service connection by demonstrating a continuity of symptomatology since service, but only if the chronic disease is listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a), including arthritis. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1337-39 (Fed. Cir. 2013). A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Veteran, during his Board hearing, asserted that he had a three-day blood pressure check during service, in October 1980, and such showed numerous elevated blood pressure readings. He reported that although there was no diagnosis of hypertension recorded during service, he was given a provisional diagnosis of hypertension on September 1979 in connection with a chest X-ray examination. He asserted that he sought treatment during service because he felt faint and the physician told him that he had hypertension and a prolonged study was required in order to determine his medication regimen; however, he was advised to only take an aspirin in each day and limit his dietary salt intake. The Veteran asserted that although his private treatment records are unavailable, he was seen privately immediately after separation from service and was prescribed medication for hypertension, as he required a physical examination and medication regimen to control his hypertension prior to beginning a job as a commercial tractor trailer driver in 1983. The Veteran’s service treatment records indicate that in September 1979, he underwent X-ray examination of the chest, with the provisional diagnosis of hypertension. In October 1980, the Veteran underwent a three-day blood pressure test, the results of which included high and low blood pressure readings. The earliest record of a post-service diagnosis of hypertension is contained in VA treatment records from the VA facilities in Florida, dated in August 2005. Records prior to that date, or records from the VA facilities in Virginia, a possible source of treatment, have not been obtained. The Veteran is competent to report that he experienced elevated blood pressure readings and was provisionally diagnosed with hypertension during service, and that he underwent treatment, with medication, for hypertension immediately after separation from service; the Board finds no basis upon which to consider that he is not credible in this regard. Layno, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470; 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a) (2). Based on the forgoing, there is probative evidence of a current diagnosis of hypertension, and, resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, probative evidence of continued symptoms of the same from the time of separation from service to the present. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1133; 38 C.F.R. § 3.309; Walker, 708 F.3d 1331, at 1337-39. The Board thus finds that service connection for service connection for hypertension is warranted.   REMANDED ISSUE Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The Veteran most recently underwent VA audiological examination in April 2013, five years prior. During his Board hearing, the Veteran asserted that during his VA examination, his hearing aids did not work and he had to seek private treatment. On remand, the AOJ should afford the Veteran a new VA examination to determine the current severity of his bilateral hearing loss and obtain any outstanding private treatment records. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Make arrangements to obtain the Veteran’s VA treatment records, dated since April 2018. 2. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-4142 for his private audiological treatment records discussed during his Board hearing, to include Florida Medical Hearing Centers. Make two requests for the authorized records from the private facility unless it is clear after the first request that a second request would be futile. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected bilateral hearing loss. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to   bilateral hearing loss alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s disability on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Purdum, Counsel