Citation Nr: 21066097 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 14-07 167 DATE: October 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from April 1997 to April 2001 and the United States Army from July 2001 to March 2009. The Veteran also had additional reserve service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 5, 2013 notification letter decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran was scheduled for a Board hearing, but the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing in October 2021. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is remanded. The Veteran contends that his obstructive sleep apnea began in service. Specifically, the Veteran reported that he had sleep apnea symptoms including snoring and gaps in breathing while deployed in Iraq from late 2006 to early 2008. As evidence, the Veteran submitted a statement from his Sergeant attesting to his snoring and gaps in breathing while sleeping during service. In May 2013, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran's sleep apnea is less likely than not (less than 50% probability) is proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's alleged witnessed symptoms in the service. As rationale, the examiner indicated it was the Veteran's weight gain during and after service that resulted in his obstructive sleep apnea. The examiner dismissed the Veteran's report of his symptoms as being PTSD-related insomnia instead of obstructive sleep apnea. Further, the examiner dismissed, without explanation, the statement by the Veteran's sergeant that he witnessed the Veteran stop breathing and snoring while deployed. The Board finds that the May 2013 VA examiner's opinion is inadequate because it summarily dismissed the symptom-onset reports of both the Veteran and the buddy statement in the file. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional). The examiner did not explain how snoring and gaps in breathing were manifestations of PTSD-related insomnia. Thus, remand is required to obtain an adequate examination. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (holding that once VA undertakes an examination, it must provide an adequate one). The Board also notes that it is unclear whether the Veteran's complete service treatment records for the period from July 2001 to March 2009 were associated with the record at the time of the July 2013 original decision or the May 2013 VA examination. The related rating decision and SOC indicate that only excerpts of the Veteran's file was available for review. Thus, the examiner did not have a complete record before them at the time of their opinion. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his obstructive sleep apnea. The examiner must review the claims file including the complete service treatment record and any lay or buddy statements contained in the record. If a diagnosis cannot be provided but the Veteran's condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a "disability" for the purpose of providing the requested opinion(s) below. The examiner is asked to provide a response to the following: Is the Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea at least as likely as not related to service, including having its onset during service? Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s). In providing the requested opinion, consider the Veteran's description of his/her in-service injury and symptoms as well as his post-service symptoms. If there is any medical reason to accept or reject the proposition that the Veteran's reported injury and symptoms in service and thereafter represented the onset of his/her current disability, this should be noted. Stated another way, do the Veteran's reports about his symptoms align with how the currently diagnosed disability is known to develop or are the Veteran's reports generally inconsistent with medical knowledge or implausible? The examiner is reminded that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, 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.