Citation Nr: 21023687 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 20-22 452 DATE: April 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, as due to herbicide agent exposure, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence weighs in favor of finding that the Veteran’s hypertension was at least as likely as not caused by his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1111, 1112, 1113, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had qualifying service from September 1966 to August 1969, including in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) from January 1969 to September 1969. See DD Form 214; Military Personnel Records. Based on his RVN service, the Board finds that the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). In a November 2020 Decision, the Board, in pertinent part, remanded the issue herein. 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension Presumptive service connection may be warranted for certain chronic diseases listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), including hypertension, if manifest to at least a compensable degree within one year from separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). Direct service connection may be warranted if the evidence shows: (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, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran generally contends that his hypertension is etiologically related to his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. In its November 2020 Decision, the Board conceded that the evidence had established a current disability of hypertension and in-service exposure to herbicide agents; however, the Board remanded to obtain an etiological opinion. Upon remand, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) afforded the Veteran a February 2021 VA hypertension examination with an etiological opinion. The February 2021 examiner found that, although the hypertension was diagnosed in 2017 (several decades after separation from service), it was at least as likely as not caused by the in-service herbicide agent exposure because of the November 2018 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report (titled “Vietnam Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure – New Report”) that moved hypertension to the category of “sufficient” evidence of an association to herbicide agent exposure (from its previous classification in the category of “limited or suggestive” evidence of an association to herbicide agent exposure). The examiner explained that the NAS’s “sufficient” category indicates that there is enough epidemiological evidence to conclude that there is a positive association, which leads him to opine that the hypertension was at least as likely as not caused by in-service herbicide agent exposure. Although the examiner concurrently indicated that the hypertension was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the in-service herbicide agent exposure, this contradictory indication seems to be in error because the explanation regarding the NAS report clearly weighs the balance of the opinion in the Veteran’s favor. Based upon this evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran’s hypertension was at least as likely as not caused by his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. Although presumptive service connection is not warranted because the disability did not manifest to at least a compensable degree within one year from separation from service (it was diagnosed in 2017, several decades after separation), direct service connection is warranted based on the favorable etiological opinion by the February 2021 VA examiner. As such, the Board grants the claim. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Daus, 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.