Citation Nr: 21009589 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-32 932 DATE: February 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for headaches is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability is granted FINDING OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s headache disorder is etiologically related to service. 2. The Veteran’s right ankle disorder is etiologically related to his service-connected right foot toe fracture. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1981 to September 1985. He appeals a December 2014 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability and a headache disorder. During the pendency of the appeal, the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability in a March 2020 rating decision. As this is a full grant of benefits as to that issue, it is no longer before the Board. Hence, the only issue remaining is entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder. Service Connection Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. Generally, the evidence 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a headache disorder. The Veteran contends that his headache disorder is attributable to service. After review of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. Review of the Veteran’s service treatment records reveals treatment for headaches on multiple occasions. In August 1982, the Veteran complained that he had suffered from severe headaches for 6 months. At that time, he asserted that they were occurring with higher frequency and may occur multiple times per day. In September 1982, a medical note indicates that his “cluster headaches” appeared to have resolved. However, in September1985 the Veteran reported a recurrence of the cluster headaches. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the threshold requirement of an in-service injury has been met. At his October 2014 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with tension headaches. He reported having a constant severe searing headache in the back of his head which never goes away. He asserted that the headaches began during basic training after seeing stars due to a hit in the head from a pugil stick. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to testify to that which is actually observed and is within the realm of personal knowledge, such as headache pain. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vat. App. 465 (1994). Therefore, because headaches are capable of lay observation and the evidence supports the Veteran’s credible contention that his headaches have continued since service, the Board finds service connection for a headache disorder is warranted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder. While this appeal was being reviewed by the Court, the Veteran submitted a new claim for service connection for a right ankle disorder in January 2020. This claim was adjudicated in March 2020, and service connection was granted for this disorder, effective the date of claim. The Board may interpret this grant as a favorable finding, and grant service connection on this basis here as well. Normally, the RO’s decision would have been a full grant, and not addressed here. However, since this issue was already in appellate status well before January 2020, the Board writes separately to point out that an updated effective date should be assigned pursuant to this decision. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Daniel Ballinger, Associate Counsel