Citation Nr: 21065884 Decision Date: 10/27/21 Archive Date: 10/27/21 DOCKET NO. 17-03 944 DATE: October 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea was incurred in, or caused by, his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea have been met. 38 U.S.C. § §§ 1101, 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1989 to June 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2021, the Veteran testified at a video-conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). This decision has been activated under the "one-touch" program, and as such, a transcript of the hearing will be associated with the claims file at a later date. 1. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent medical or lay 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. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Veteran has been diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea. See May 2016 Sleep Apnea Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). Accordingly, he has a current disability. Davidson, 581 F.3d 1313. The Veteran reported he experienced "heroic" snoring during service and excessive daytime sleepiness. See May 2016 Sleep Apnea DBQ. His wife submitted a statement reflecting that she was unable to get to sleep and had to roll the Veteran on his side to reduce his snoring. She also stated he would stop breathing while he slept and would not start breathing again until she nudged him. See September 2016 Statement in Support of Claim. The Board notes that the Veteran and his wife are competent to report on his in-service sleep issues. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005) (finding that a veteran is competent to report on factual matters of which he has firsthand knowledge); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board also finds these statements credible. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995); Baldwin v. Brown, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999) (reflecting that determinations concerning the credibility of evidence are within the purview of the Board). In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted a statement by a pulmonary and sleep medicine specialist. The specialist noted that the Veteran had a longstanding history of snoring and daytime sleepiness during his active duty service which had been noted by his fellow shipmates. The specialist opined that the Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea had its clinical onset during active duty, rationalizing that the severity of the Veteran's sleep apnea at the time of diagnosis, in addition to his clinical symptoms, indicated that the Veteran's sleep apnea was not a recent development. See March 2013 Dr. P.C. Statement. The Board acknowledges that there is also a negative etiological opinion of record in the form of a May 2016 VA examination report. In sum, the Board finds that it is as least as likely as not that the Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea was incurred during active service. In this regard, the Board finds the statements of the Veteran and his wife, and the opinion of the sleep specialist to be competent, credible, and highly probative of the fact that the Veteran's sleep symptomatology began during his active service and has continued since. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372. Although there is a conflicting medical record, the Board finds that, at the least, the evidence for and against the claims is in relative equipoise. (Continued on the next page) When the evidence for and against a claim is in relative equipoise, by law, the Board must resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b); 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran and entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is warranted. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. M. Stedman, 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.