Citation Nr: 21013017 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-39 730 DATE: March 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from February 2003 to April 2007 and from December 2008 to October 2009. The Department of Veterans Affairs is grateful for his service. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a videoconference hearing conducted in December 2020. A transcript is of record. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is remanded. In an August 2015 statement the Veteran asserted that he was diagnosed with high blood pressure as soon as he was discharged from service. However, medical evidence of record does not reflect a diagnosis of hypertension or blood pressure readings in hypertensive ranges within the first year of either of his periods of active duty. The Veteran in August 2015 also submitted some private medical records containing elevated blood pressure readings, but these did not show a hypertensive reading prior to February 2011, which was over a year following the date of separation from his last period of service. In a notice of disagreement submitted in November 2015, the Veteran informed that within days of his October 2009 service discharge, a VA medical visit in October 2009 found borderline blood pression. The Veteran added that he underwent a formal evaluation for hypertension in November 2012 by a Dr. S. Stephen. However, borderline readings are not a diagnosis of hypertension. Records submitted on December 31, 2020 include treatment records from 2017 to 2019, which document multiple blood pressure readings in hypertensive ranges. The Veteran then also provided his own list of dates of medical records and blood pressure readings on those dates, including readings from 2003 to 2020. These records show that in service and within the first year following service separations, blood pressure readings were all below 160 systolic and below 100 diastolic, and were also below 150 systolic in all readings except for one in September 2005 at 155/79 and one in October 2009 at 152/85. At his December 2020 hearing before the undersigned, the Veteran denied being diagnosed or treated for hypertension in service, though he reported that there were several elevated readings in service. He testified to being first diagnosed with hypertension in 2011 or 2012. Careful review of the record does not reflect the presence of service or post-service medical records facially supporting a diagnosis of hypertension either in service or within the first year following either of his periods of service, and, hence, at this juncture service connection cannot be supported based on onset in service or on a first-year-post-service presumptive basis (generally, service connection where the chronic disability is present to a compensable degree within the first post-service year). 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309. Accordingly, based on the presence of some elevated blood pressure readings in service or proximate to service, remand is warranted for an examination addressing the likelihood of hypertension having an onset in service or in the first post-service year or a causal link to service. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Afford the Veteran an examination to address the nature and etiology of current hypertension. The claims file must be reviewed, and any necessary tests or studies should be conducted. The examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s hypertension developed during one of his periods of active duty, which were from February 2003 to April 2007 and from December 2008 to October 2009, or was present within the first year following one of these periods of service or is otherwise causally related to service. The examiner should provide a complete explanation for each opinion expressed. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Schechter 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.