Citation Nr: 20021336 Decision Date: 03/25/20 Archive Date: 03/25/20 DOCKET NO. 17-56 446 DATE: March 25, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is granted. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s hypertension had its onset in service. 2. A June 1992 rating decision denied service connection for hearing loss. The Veteran did not appeal that decision, and new and material evidence was not actually or constructively received within one year of notice of its issuance. 3. Evidence received more than one year since the final June 1992 rating decision, namely the February 2020 Board hearing testimony, is neither cumulative nor redundant of evidence already of record and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for hypertension are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The June 1992 rating decision is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103. 3. The criteria to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 1977 to May 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is granted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic disabilities, including hypertension, may be presumed to have been incurred in service when manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from active duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1112; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The option of establishing service connection through a demonstration of continuity of symptomatology is specifically limited to the chronic disabilities listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Here, a current diagnosis of hypertension is confirmed by the evidence of record. See e.g., October 2016 VA treatment record. Accordingly, the first element of service connection is met. Turning to the second element, in-service incurrence of a disease or injury, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) do not identify any complaints, treatment for, or diagnosis of hypertension or high blood pressure. However, the Veteran asserts that his hypertension initially manifested towards the ending of his service period and has continued ever since, as he experienced in-service symptoms attributable to hypertension, namely dizziness and lightheadedness. Critically. the Veteran is competent to report experiencing such symptoms during service, as they are capable of lay observation. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-71 (1994) (a lay person is competent to report symptoms based on personal observation when no special knowledge or training is required). Further, the Board finds that the Veteran’s failure to seek related treatment for these symptoms during service does not undermine the credibility of his reports, as it seems reasonable that the Veteran, who served as a medical specialist, would not necessarily report symptoms of such nature since he would be aware and recognize the symptoms of high blood pressure, take his own blood pressure, and remedy it without recording it in his STRs. Additionally, the Veteran stated that he did not realize he was having problems with blood pressure, because he initially attributed dizziness and lightheadedness to being in a hot climate, such as Oklahoma and Texas. See Board Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 10. Moreover, the Board finds that the Veteran’s report of hypertension symptoms during and continuously since service is consistent with the elevated blood pressure readings recorded in March 1985 and July 1987 STRs, as well as the extremely high blood pressure readings in a January 1992 private treatment record and May 1992 VA examination report, not long after the Veteran’s discharge from active duty in May 1989. Accordingly, as the Veteran’s reports are uncontroverted and consistent with the circumstances of his service, the Board finds his assertions of experiencing symptoms of hypertension during service and until his formal diagnosis of hypertension in 1992 to be credible. Accordingly, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for hypertension are met based on continuity of symptomatology. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss is remanded. Regarding the Veteran’s reopened claim for hearing loss, the December 2016 VA examination report does not demonstrate hearing loss in either ear for VA purposes. However, the Veteran testified that he receives VA treatment and underwent recent hearing examinations. See Board Hearing Tr. at 16-17. Updated VA records have not yet been associated with the claims file. Thus, on remand, all outstanding VA treatment records should be obtained, as well as any private treatment records, and if demonstrative of hearing loss for VA purposes, an addendum opinion secured. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. With any necessary assistance from the Veteran, obtain any outstanding relevant private treatment records. 3. If and only if additional treatment records are obtained pursuant to this remand and show that the Veteran has a hearing loss disability as recognized by VA, obtain an addendum opinion from a VA examiner other than the December 2016 examiner as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran’s hearing loss had its onset in or is otherwise related to service. In addressing this question, please discuss the Veteran’s statements regarding in-service noise exposure and continuous hearing loss symptomatology since service (see Board Hearing Transcript), as well as the possibility of delayed onset hearing loss. Additionally, please do not rely solely on the fact that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty is associated with a low probability of hazardous noise exposure or that hearing loss was not demonstrated at service separation to support an opinion. A complete rationale should be given for all opinions and conclusions expressed. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S.S. Mahoney The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.