Citation Nr: 20056972 Decision Date: 08/28/20 Archive Date: 08/28/20 DOCKET NO. 20-26 739 DATE: August 28, 2020 ORDER Service connection for asthma is granted. Service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his asthma is at least as likely as not related to service. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his COPD is at least as likely as not related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for asthma have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for COPD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, had service from October 1962 to March 1966. In August 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ); a transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. Service Connection 1. Entitlements to service connection for asthma and COPD. The Veteran asserts that his asthma and COPD are related to service. Specifically, he contends that he was exposed to chemicals and irritants, such as jet fuel and propane, which caused him to develop asthma and COPD. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2018). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999), citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of symptoms. 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). Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that "[w]hether lay evidence is competent and sufficient in a particular case is a factual issue to be addressed by the Board"). 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. In Jefferson v. Principi, 271 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), citing its decision in Madden, recognized that the Board has an inherent fact-finding ability. Id. at 1076. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to weigh and assess the evidence. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000). As a finder of fact, when considering whether lay evidence is satisfactory, the Board may also properly consider internal inconsistency of the statements, facial plausibility, consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the Veteran, and the Veteran's demeanor when testifying at a hearing. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007). The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current asthma and COPD disability 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). VA outpatient treatment records and July 2020 private treatment records show the Veteran has current diagnoses of asthma and COPD. Service treatment records do not reflect complaints or treatment for respiratory conditions; however, the Veteran has indicated he was exposed to jet fuel, propane, and other chemicals and irritants from serving on the flight line and checking the engines of aircraft. The Veteran’s DD214 confirms his military occupational specialty was that of an aircraft mechanic and the AOJ has already conceded in the April 2020 Statement of the Case that exposure to these chemicals was consistent with his duties. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disabilities are related to service. On this question there is a probative opinion in favor of the claim. The evidence in favor of the claim includes an April 2019 and July 2020 private nexus opinion and the Veteran’s statements. In April 2019, Dr. L.E.M. reported that the Veteran had asthma COPD overlap syndrome. Dr. M. stated that she was not involved in the Veteran’s care while he was on active duty but he reported that his job was to launch and recover the fighter aircraft and assist pilots before and after each flight. She explained he described exposure to fumes and chemicals from aircraft while fulfilling his job duties. She felt it was as likely as not that his exposures in service may be the reason for his asthma COPD overlap syndrome. In July 2020, Dr. M. provided an addendum opinion. She again described the Veteran’s exposure to “fumes and chemicals from aircraft when fulfilling his job duties” during service. Based on the physician’s specialized medical knowledge, she determined that it is at least as likely as not the Veteran’s asthma and COPD are the result of such exposures while on active service. The Board finds this medical opinion highly probative of a positive nexus between the Veteran’s current condition and service because it not only contains a clear conclusion with supporting data. Although it does not contain a thorough rationale, there is no evidence to the contrary in the file and remanding for a rationale would only delay adjudication. See Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991). Throughout the appeal, the Veteran has consistently endorsed exposure to toxic chemicals during service, which are consistent with his duties as an aircraft mechanic. He testified that he first noticed symptoms during service. Specifically, he reported that after climbing in the engine to check for hot spots he would tell his boss he didn’t feel well. His boss asked if he was drowsy and said that was normal. His statements are afforded great probative value. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s current asthma and COPD are related to service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for asthma and COPD are warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Connally, Counsel 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.