Citation Nr: 21077308 Decision Date: 12/29/21 Archive Date: 12/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-50 271 DATE: December 29, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bladder disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's bladder disability is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for bladder disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304(f)(3). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from May 1966 to May 1970 and from October 1971 to October 1997. The matter arises before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2018 rating decision. The Veteran testified at a November 2021 Board Hearing before the undersigned Veterans' Law Judge. Service Connection Service connection may be established for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a link between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a bladder disability is granted. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's bladder disability is related to his active-duty service. Therefore, the claim for service connection for a bladder disability is warranted. Here, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current bladder disability. See November 2021 private medical report from Dr. R. K. (reporting diagnosis of neurogenic bladder). Therefore, the current disability requirement is met. The second element is also met. The Veteran reported that when he was in service, he served as security police in the United States Air Force, guarding B52s, tankers, and weapons storage areas. He asserted that he was at his post for 8, 10, or 12 hours at a time and that he frequently would not be able to leave his post to use the restroom even when he had to. See Board Hearing Transcript, pp. 3-4. The Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report his experiences, as they come through his senses. Moreover, his DD-214 Form shows that his military occupational specialty was security police manager. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran's statements are corroborated. Thus, the issue is whether there is a link between the Veteran's bladder disability and his active-duty service. In this regard, the Board finds persuasive the private medical opinion dated November 2021 from Dr. R. K., who opined that the Veteran's neurogenic bladder is likely related to the Veteran's years of service, as the Veteran's bladder stretch injury is caused by delayed voiding. See November 2021 private medical report from Dr. R. K. In forming this opinion, Dr. R. K. properly and thoroughly considered the lay statements and medical records. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds the opinion to be sufficient and entitled to probative weight. Furthermore, there is no adequate negative nexus opinion on file. Based on the foregoing, the claim for service connection for bladder disability is granted. H.M. WALKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. J. Cho, 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.