Citation Nr: 21064398 Decision Date: 10/20/21 Archive Date: 10/20/21 DOCKET NO. 15-27 114 DATE: October 20, 2021 ORDER Service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to his service-connected psychiatric condition is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, his hypertension is proximately due by his service-connected psychiatric condition. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force November 1967 to June 1978. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran died in February 2017. The Appellant is his surviving spouse and has been granted substitution. 38 U.S.C. § 5121A. This case was previously before the Board in September 2018, April 2020 and March 2021 and remanded for additional development. Service Connection In general, service connection may be granted for a disability or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2018). Service connection may also be found on a secondary basis where the following criteria is met: (1) a current disability that is not already service-connected; (2) at least one service-connected disability; and, (3) evidence that the non-service-connected current disability is either proximately due to or as the result of a service connected disability; or, aggravated by a service connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (2018); see also El-Amin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 136 (2013); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). In order to prevail under a theory of secondary service connection, the evidence must demonstrate an etiological relationship between (1) a service-connected disability or disabilities and (2) the condition said to be proximately due to the service-connected disability or disabilities. See Buckley v. West, 12 Vet. App. 76, 84 (1998); see also Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). In addition, secondary service connection may also be found in certain instances when a service-connected disability aggravates another condition. See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995); 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical and lay evidence, with due consideration to VA's policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts in each individual case. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. See 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 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 that Board had inherent fact-finding ability. Id. at 1076; see also 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (West 2002). Further, 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. See Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992). Hypertension The Veteran seeks service connection for his hypertension condition. In support, prior to his passing away, the Veteran reported that his hypertension was related to service and his service-connected conditions. See VA medical examination (October 2014). The Veteran had a diagnosis of hypertension. Id. Thus, the Veteran had a current condition and meets the first element of service connection. The Board acknowledges that the March 2021 examiner opined that the Veteran's hypertension condition is not related to service or his service-connected disabilities. However, upon reflection, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for the Veteran's hypertension since the credible and competent medical and lay evidence shows that the Veteran's hypertension is related to his service-connected psychiatric condition. In reaching this determination, the Board notes that in August 2013 and March 2014 statements, two VA physicians who treated the Veteran eacg opined that his hypertension was caused by his service-connected psychiatric condition. See VA physician letters, B.C., C.S. (August 2013 and March 2014). Both physicians opined that it was more likely that not that his hypertension was caused by the Veteran's service-connected psychiatric condition. Thus, resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, because the Veteran's hypertension was caused and aggravated by his service-connected psychiatric condition, secondary service connection for hypertension disability is granted. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Alvarado- Associate 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.