Citation Nr: 21073045 Decision Date: 12/07/21 Archive Date: 12/07/21 DOCKET NO. 19-14 511 DATE: December 7, 2021 ORDER Service connection for hypertension is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's hypertension is etiologically related to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1153; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1982 to April 1988 and from December 2005 to July 2006. The Veteran had additional service with the United States Navy Reserve (Reserve), including a period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from January 2005 to June 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2018 rating decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The Veteran participated in a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2020, and a transcript of this hearing has been associated with the record. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The term "active service" includes, in pertinent part, any period of ACDUTRA during which the veteran was disabled from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. See 38 U.S.C. § 101(24). In this case, in January 2005, the Veteran began a period of ACDUTRA service that concluded in June 2005. During this period of service, in February 2005, the Veteran's blood pressure was 158/114, and a clinician assessed the Veteran with asymptomatic elevated blood pressure. The Veteran was placed on a 5-day program to monitor his blood pressure readings. Following this program, in March 2005, the Veteran's blood pressure measured 130/84 and 132/82, and a clinician noted that the Veteran's hypertension had improved with diet and exercise. In March 2005, a clinician formally diagnosed the Veteran with hypertension; the Veteran wished to attempt to control his blood pressure with diet and exercise. In June 2006, the Veteran's blood pressure measured 147/88 and 149/88, and a clinician noted that the Veteran had been informed that his blood pressure had been elevated in the past. Following his separation from service, in November 2009, a clinician assessed the Veteran with elevated blood pressure after his blood pressure measured 141/97. The clinician recommended that the Veteran monitor his blood pressure readings and consider an antihypertensive medication. In June 2010, a clinician diagnosed the Veteran with hypertension, and the Veteran has received treatment for hypertension since that time. In April 2019, an examiner, noting the Veteran's February 2005 and March 2005 treatment for hypertension, concluded that the Veteran's hypertension disability clearly and unmistakably existed before his December 2005 to July 2006 period of active duty service, and that such disability was clearly and unmistakably not aggravated by this period of active duty service. The examiner's opinion did not, however, acknowledge that the Veteran's February 2005 and March 2005 treatment for hypertension occurred during a period of ACDUTRA. Turning to an analysis of this evidence, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's hypertension disability had an onset during his January 2005 to June 2005 period of ACDUTRA. The Board acknowledges that the April 2019 examiner ultimately opined that the Veteran's hypertension disability was not aggravated by his December 2005 to July 2006 period of active duty service. In so doing, however, the examiner, noting the Veteran's February 2005 and March 2005 treatment for elevated blood pressure, found that the Veteran's hypertension clearly and unmistakably existed before December 2005. The examiner also noted that there was no evidence of treatment or diagnosis of hypertension prior to 2005. Resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that this opinion supports a connection between the Veteran's current hypertension disability and his treatment for hypertension during ACDUTRA service. Service connection for hypertension is granted. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J.A. Flynn, 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.