Citation Nr: 21029135 Decision Date: 05/12/21 Archive Date: 05/12/21 DOCKET NO. 18-46 282A DATE: May 12, 2021 ORDER Service connection for hepatitis C is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, hepatitis C was incurred in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for hepatitis C are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1979 to April 1980 in the U.S. Army with additional service in the National Guard. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an August 2017 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing in May 2021. A hearing transcript will be associated with the file at a later date. The Veteran contends that his hepatitis C is related to the use of vaccine air gun injectors during service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for 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. The medical evidence of record shows that the Veteran has had a diagnosis of hepatitis C since at least 1997 and residual liver cirrhosis. See VA Treatment Records received October 2018; see also May 2017 Disability Benefits Questionnaire. Accordingly, the first element of service connection is established. Regarding the second element, in-service incurrence, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) cannot be located. See April and June 2016 Request for Information; see also August 2016 STR Transfer or Certification. In September 2016, the RO deemed the Veteran's STRs unavailable after exhaustive efforts to secure them were unsuccessful and informed the Veteran of such. In cases where the STRs are unavailable, the Board has a heightened duty to assist the Veteran in the development of his claim. Cuevas v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 542 (1992). Throughout the period on appeal, the Veteran has competently and credibly stated that he was inoculated with various vaccines with an air injector during service. In September 2017, the Veteran stated that he observed many fellow solders receiving the same vaccine injections with blood visibly running down their shoulders and upper arms. The Veteran submitted supporting articles regarding the use of immunization air injectors in the military from 1949 to 1997. Accordingly, the Board finds that the second element of service-connection is established. Turning to the third element, nexus, the Veteran submitted an article regarding the relationship between hepatitis C and immunization air injectors. See March 2021 Correspondence. Additionally, the Veteran submitted a medical article stating that hepatitis C has only been recognized since 1989. In April 2017, the Veteran submitted a Risk Factors for Hepatitis Questionnaire, which noted that he does not have any other risk factors for hepatitis. The Veteran submitted a letter from his treating physician stating that it is medically probable that the Veteran developed hepatitis while serving in the military. See April 2017 Correspondence. The Board notes that in May 2017, the Veteran reported that he tried cocaine one time in 1979; however, this was noted on the May 2017 Disability Benefits Questionnaire completed by the Veteran's treating physician. Based on the foregoing, after resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's hepatitis C is related to air injectors used to administer vaccines during his military service. Accordingly, the claim for service connection for hepatitis C is granted. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Kernen, 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.