Citation Nr: 21067201 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-17 521 DATE: November 3, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from September 1980 to September 1983. He then served in the U.S. Navy Reserves from October 1983 to December 1986, to include periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). He also served in the Army National Guard from September 1997 to September 1998. This matter is 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 January 2019, the Board remanded the case for additional development and it now returns for appellate review. To date, the Veteran has not designated an individual or Veterans Service Organization as his representative. Therefore, the Board recognizes the Veteran as proceeding pro se in this appeal. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The Veteran contends that he is entitlement to service connection for hypertension due to his military service. The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) reveals that he had elevated blood pressure in August 1983. While he was in the Reserves, a February 1986 STR noted that the Veteran was taking medications due to his high blood pressure. The Board notes that the Veteran's military service records indicate that he served in the Reserves from October 1983 to December 1986 and the Guard from September 1997 to September 1998, to include periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) or inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). However, the record does not show that he was diagnosed with hypertension during a period of ACDUTRA. Therefore, the remaining inquiry is whether the Veteran's hypertension is related to his active duty service from September 1980 to September 1983. In this regard, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2020. At such time, the examiner noted that the Veteran was diagnosed with hypertension in 1984 or 1985. The examiner also referenced a 1986 STR note that listed hypertension and the Veteran's Tenormin prescription. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's hypertension was less likely than not incurred in or caused by an in-service injury, event, or illness. As rationale, the examiner explained that, in all medical probability the Veteran has idiopathic hypertension and his family members had hypertension, coronary artery disease and early death. Additionally, in a September 2020 VA addendum opinion, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's hypertension was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner noted that the Veteran's STRs noted a variance in blood pressure and poor control in 1983. However, the examiner found that the Veteran had a strong family history of high blood pressure and explained that his idiopathic hypertension was the cause of his high blood pressure. The Board finds that July 2020 and September 2020 VA examiner's opinions are inadequate to decide the claim as the opinions do not include a complete rationale. In this regard, while the examiner referenced his elevated blood pressure in service, he concluded that such disability was more likely due to his family history. However, in July 2020 the examiner did not reference the 1983 notation and in September 2020 the examiner did not provide an adequate rationale as to whether it was at least as likely than not that the Veteran's hypertension was related to his elevated blood pressure during service. Therefore, the opinions are inadequate and cannot be relied upon to decide the Veteran's claim. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A]medical opinion...must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions"). Thus, a remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Transfer the claims file to another qualified VA examiner for an addendum opinion. The claims file and this Remand must be made available to the examiner. The reviewing examiner must indicate that these records have been reviewed. If another VA examination is deemed necessary by the reviewing examiner, such should be accomplished. After reviewing the record, please address the following: (A) The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's hypertension is related to his elevated blood pressure during service? The Board notes the previous opinions regarding the Veteran's family history. However, the examiner should note that the July 2020 VA examiner stated that the Veteran's STRs showed a variance in blood pressure and poor control in 1983. Thus, the examiner should specifically address the 1983 STR that shows such variance. A complete rationale for all opinions rendered must be provided. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, he or she must explain why this is so. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Brennae L. Brooks, 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.