Citation Nr: 21026445 Decision Date: 05/03/21 Archive Date: 05/03/21 DOCKET NO. 20-13 430 DATE: May 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has experienced headaches related to migraine headache disability since her separation from service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 2007 to April 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2018 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared for a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in April 2021. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the appellant or obtained on her behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000). Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Entitlement to service connection for migraine headaches The Veteran contends she first experienced daily headaches in service which eventually escalated to migraines after service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for direct service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service, with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). After a review of the evidence, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board grants service connection for migraine headaches based on continuity of symptomatology of a chronic disability. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of migraine headaches as evidenced by January 2015 and June 2018 VA treatment records. Walker, 708 F.3d at 1335. At enlistment the Veteran denied a history of headaches. Service treatment records indicate the Veteran reported frequent headaches in January 2010, during active service. She also received treatment for daily headaches shortly after service, in February 2011. Additionally, October 2014 VA treatment records reveal reports of daily, severe headaches, which are indicated as probable migraines. A June 2018 VA neurology consult diagnosed migraine headaches. The June 2018 VA examination opined against relation to service, relying largely on a lack of medical documentation between discharge from service and the June 2018 diagnosis of migraine headache. However, the examiner did not consider the Veteran's competent and credible statements that her symptoms continued without interruption until her diagnosis of migraine headaches. Accordingly, the Board finds the June 2018 VA examination to be inadequate and entitled to no probative weight. See, e.g., Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board has attempted to obtain an adequate medical opinion, but conflicting evidence remains. The Board finds that additional delay of adjudication on this appeal on the merits is not warranted. There is probative evidence of record in support of this claim, to include the Veteran's lay reports of headaches in and since service. There is also evidence of record against the claim, including the VA examination opinion noted above. However, the opinion is of no probative value for the reasons noted above. While no available treatment records do not show the Veteran's condition manifested to a compensable degree during the applicable presumptive period, the Board finds that the Veteran continued to experience headaches since her separation from service. The Veteran is competent to report that she experienced those symptoms since service. Her statements are credible and entitled to probative weight, as they are internally consistent, consistent with other evidence of record which shows that these symptoms were attributable to migraines. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307-08 (2007); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Thus, although the Veteran was not diagnosed with the chronic disease while in service or within the presumptive period thereafter, affording her the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that continuity of symptomatology has been established by the evidence of record. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Blevins, 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.