Citation Nr: 21040236 Decision Date: 07/02/21 Archive Date: 07/02/21 DOCKET NO. 14-32 272A DATE: July 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current disability of hypertension for VA purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.104, Diagnostic Code (DC) 7101, Note (1). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1980 to August 2012. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2013 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision. In that rating decision, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for "hypertension also claimed as heat stroke." The Veteran's notice of disagreement (NOD) was received in April 2014. The RO issued the statement of the case (SOC) in July 2014; in that SOC, the RO recharacterized the claim of "hypertension also claimed as heat stroke" into separate service connection claims for (i) hypertension and for (ii) heat stroke. The Veteran's VA Form 9, substantive appeal was received in September 2014; in the Form 9, the Veteran appealed both the hypertension and the heat stroke service connection claims. In April 2020, the Board remanded the hypertension service connection claim for further development and adjudicative action. Additionally, the Board denied the heat stroke service connection claim. Because the issues were pursued as separate service connection claims, and the Veteran did not appeal the Board's April 2020 denial of the service connection heat stroke service connection claim, the Board does not have jurisdiction over that issue. Rather, the issue currently before the Board is the issue of entitlement to service connection for hypertension. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Entitlement to service connection for hypertension The Veteran seeks service connection for hypertension. See, e.g. January 2013 Application for Compensation and/or Pension (listing the disability of "Hypertension" with an onset of July 2012); see also September 2014 VA Form 9 (appealing the denial of the claim for service connection for hypertension). Hypertension for VA purposes means that the diastolic blood pressure is predominantly 90 or more, or systolic blood pressure is predominantly 160 or more. Hypertension must be confirmed by readings taken two or more times on three different days. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104 DC 7101, Note (1). Service Treatment Records (STRs) show that the Veteran consistently denied any history of hypertension or high blood pressure. Specifically, January 1978, June 1979, November 1980, April 1983, August 1996, and March 2003 Reports of Medical History shows that the Veteran denied a history of high (or low) blood pressure. A November 1996 STR shows a single instance of elevated blood pressure, based on readings of 140/90 (systolic over diastolic); 132/88; and 146/88. In September 1998, the Veteran denied a history of hypertension. See September 1998 health risk appraisal individual profile. A September 1998 Cardiovascular questionnaire shows that the Veteran denied a history of high blood pressure, and the Veteran's blood pressure was "within normal limits." An October 2001 Optical examination report shows that the Veteran denied a history of high blood pressure. At an April 2013 VA examination, the Veteran "[did] not have [hypertension] and is not claiming and denies to be evaluated. [sic]" Blood pressure was normal, measured at 132/78, 138/82, and 140/80. May 2014 correspondence reflects that the Veteran indicated "I do not suffer from hypertension; I suffered heat stroke in July 1987 while participating in unit physical training at Fort Bragg, NC." A March 2016 VA health record shows that the Veteran presented for "renewal of medication for HTN." Blood pressure was "typically in high 120s systolically and was "elevated slightly at the time of the appointment." However, a list of current problems is silent for indication of hypertension, and the only active medication was Celecoxib, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. The Veteran was afforded a VA hypertension examination in November 2020. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not have a current diagnosis of hypertension and further reported that the Veteran was not under the care of a provider and was not taking hypertension medication. Blood pressure measured 132/80; 126/70; and 130/78. Based on the foregoing, the Veteran does not have a current disability of hypertension for VA purposes. The Veteran's diastolic blood pressure has consistently tested to below 90mm, and a single (November 1996) reading shows diastolic blood pressure at exactly 90mm. The record contains numerous blood pressure readings, none of which reflect systolic blood pressure above 160. Additionally, the record contains a single diastolic reading at 90, in November 1996. Notably, even the Veteran, by his own admission in 2014, stated that he did not have hypertension. For those reasons, the weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a current disability of hypertension for VA purposes. As the "current disability" element of the service connection claim is not met, no further analysis of the "in-service" or "nexus" elements of the service connection claim is necessary. The claim is denied. TIFFANY HANSON Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board B. KAYS HUKILL 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.