Citation Nr: 19106967 Decision Date: 01/30/19 Archive Date: 01/29/19 DOCKET NO. 15-21 300 DATE: January 30, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a headache disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s headache disability had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for service connection for a headache disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 2002 to December 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2014 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In January 2015, the Veteran initiated an appeal of the January 2014 rating decision regarding service connection claims for right shin condition, hearing loss, and digestive problem, as well as an increased rating claim for left upper eyelid verrucous. The RO issued the Veteran a statement of the case (SOC) in April 2015, but as he did not file a timely substantive appeal as to these matters, they are not in appellate status and are not for consideration by the Board. Consistent with the VA’s duty to sympathetically construe claims to encompass any disabilities or symptoms that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimed disability, the Board has recharacterized the Veteran’s migraine claim (claimed as migraines-ionizing radiation) as a headache disability claim. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Service Connection Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In general, service connection requires competent evidence showing (1) the existence of a current disability, (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any material issue, reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 49. Entitlement to service connection for a headache disability. A December 2013 VA examination report shows the Veteran was diagnosed with tension headaches. Private treatment records from 2014 show the Veteran was diagnosed with migraine headaches. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) show that he sought treatment multiple times for his headaches in 2007 and 2010. In his November 2010 separation exam, the Veteran reported frequent/severe headaches and explained that his headaches occur almost daily with varying degrees of severity, and that once or twice a week he has a painful headache that makes it difficult to see and function normally. Thus, the record reflects that the Veteran had documented headaches in service on multiple occasions and has current diagnoses of both migraine and tension headaches. The Veteran contends that the headaches that started in service have continued until the present time. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report that he has headaches. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Board also finds the Veteran’s assertions regarding his experiencing headaches from the time of active military service until present time to be credible. The Board acknowledges the December 2013 VA examination and corresponding January 2014 negative medical nexus opinion. However, this opinion is inadequate because it determined that the Veteran did not have migraine headaches when the record reflects that the Veteran was diagnosed with migraine headaches and prescribed medication to treat migraine headaches. Moreover, the examiner did not adequately address the etiology of the Veteran’s current tension headaches because he did not provide a cogent rationale for why the headaches in service were not related to the current headaches. Thus, this medical opinion has no probative value. In sum, the evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran’s current headache disability is related to his military service and the headaches documented therein. Accordingly, as the evidence is in at least a state of relative equipoise, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by headaches is warranted. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Ariasaif, Associate Counsel