Citation Nr: A21020294 Decision Date: 12/21/21 Archive Date: 12/21/21 DOCKET NO. 200331-79114 DATE: December 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to herbicide exposure is denied. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to hypertension is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a heart condition, to include as secondary to hypertension is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that hypertension began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that diabetes mellitus began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease, or to any service-connected condition. 3. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a heart condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease, or to any service-connected condition. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for service connection for diabetes mellitus, including as secondary to hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, .307, 3.309, 3.310. 3. The criteria for service connection for a heart condition, including as secondary to hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from April 1965 to October 1968. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) decision issued in March 2020. In March 2020, the Veteran appealed this decision and selected the Board Hearing Docket lane under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) review system by submitting a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 10182. The Veteran was afforded a virtual hearing in June 2021; a transcript of the hearing is of record. At that hearing, the Veteran was informed that he had a right to an additional 90 days to submit additional evidence. Service Connection Generally, to establish service connection a Veteran must show: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service." Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 131516 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection may be granted on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The evidence must show: (1) that a current disability exists; and (2) that the current disability was either (a) proximately caused by or (b) proximately aggravated (worsened in severity beyond its natural progress) by a service-connected disability. Id.; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 44849 (1995). VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to herbicide exposure 2. Entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus, to include as secondary to hypertension 3. Entitlement to service connection for a heart condition, to include as secondary to hypertension The Veteran contends that his hypertension is due to herbicide exposure. On his original application for service connection for diabetes mellitus and a heart condition, the Veteran claimed these conditions to be secondary to his hypertension. Service department records do not show that the Veteran served in an area where herbicide exposure is presumed, and the Veteran does not contend that he served in an area where herbicide exposure is presumed. Rather, the Veteran asserts that his medical provider informed him that since his brother was exposed to Agent Orange, the Veteran developed symptoms from being exposed to his brother. VA recognizes entitlement to benefits under 38 U.S.C. §§ 1805 or 1815 for certain birth defects of a child born to a Vietnam Veteran, and benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1821 for certain birth defects of a child born to certain Korea service veterans. Additionally, under 38 U.S.C. § 1822, benefits are also authorized for a child of a veteran with covered service in Thailand who is suffering from certain birth defects. There is no entitlement to benefits based on a theory of "sibling to sibling" passing of a disease. The record does not otherwise trigger VA's duty to assist the Veteran in the development of his claim. Thus, the AOJ did not commit a pre-decisional duty to assist error. The Veteran's service treatment records reflect that he neither complained of, nor sought treatment for symptoms associated with hypertension, diabetes mellitus or a heart condition. He also does not contend that he was treated for these diseases or symptoms thereof in service. There is no competent medical evidence of record linking these diseases to his military service. The Board notes that there are instances in which a layperson may be competent to offer testimony on medical matters, such as describing symptoms observable to the naked eye or even diagnosing simple conditions. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board finds, however, that the question posed by this claim, specifically the question of whether the Veteran's hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or heart disease is related to service, is of such complexity as to require that individuals who provide competent medical evidence on this matter possess a level of expertise that a layperson simply does not possess. Thus, entitlement to service connection on a direct basis is denied. As the Veteran is not service connected for hypertension, he cannot be secondarily service connected for diabetes mellitus or a heart condition. Thus, entitlement to service connection for diabetes mellitus or a heart condition as secondary to hypertension is denied. The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims, the claims are not in equipoise. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Accordingly, the claims must be denied. TANYA SMITH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Edwin B. Esmenda, 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.