Citation Nr: 21042464 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-54 329 DATE: July 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to exposure to lead-based paint and/or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in paint, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has hypertension due to an event, injury, or disease in service, to include as due to exposure to lead-based paint and/or VOCs in paint. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for hypertension, to include as due to exposure to lead-based paint and/or VOCs in paint, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 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 December 1976 to February 1981. In January 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. The Board notes, however, the VLJ who conducted the hearing is no longer employed by the Board. The Veteran was informed of his right to a new hearing with a different VLJ in an April 2021 letter. He did not respond within 30 days of the date of the letter. As such, the Board will consider his claims based on the evidence of record. In March 2020, this matter, along with several other matters, was remanded for further development. The other issues have been granted service connection and as such, are no longer before the Board. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension, to include as due to exposure to lead-based paint and/or VOCs in paint. Service connection may be granted for current disability arising from disease or injury incurred or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, 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. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). The Veteran has contended that his hypertension is due to his military service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Post-service treatment records document hypertension sometime around 1997. Although the Veteran has a current diagnosis of hypertension, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the hypertension began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Direct service connection cannot be established where there is no evidence indicating a nexus between a current disability and an in-service injury or disease. The service treatment records (STRs) show no complaints of, or treatment for, hypertension. On the service separation examination, the Veteran did not report issues with hypertension and blood pressure was normal with a reading of 120/72. During the February 2021 VA examination, the examiner indicated that the Veteran's entire file had been reviewed. She opined that hypertension is less likely than not related to the Veteran's exposure to lead-based paint and/or VOCs because there is no record to support that hypertension developed while in service. Indeed, the examiner noted that the Veteran's blood pressure was normal throughout active duty, to include on separation examination. She also indicated that there is no medical literature to support the Veteran's claim that his hypertension is a result of his duties involving spray painting aboard the USS Spruance. The Board finds the February 2021 VA medical opinion probative as it was predicated upon a review of the Veteran's claims file and contains clear conclusions connected to supporting data by a reasoned medical explanation. Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-49 (2000); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Board also notes that there is no opinion to the contrary. As noted, post-service treatment records document treatment for hypertension around 1997, 16 years after the Veteran's separation from active service. As high blood pressure was not seen until several years following the Veteran's separation from service, service connection on a presumptive basis is also not warranted. Although the Veteran believes that his current hypertension is related to service, as a lay person, he has not shown that he has specialized training sufficient to render such an opinion. Lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, but the specific issue in this case, the etiology of hypertension, falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. Accordingly, the Veteran's opinion as to the etiology of his hypertension is not competent medical evidence. In summary, hypertension was not shown in service or for many years thereafter, and the most probative evidence is against a finding that the current hypertension is related to service. Accordingly, the appeal in this matter must be denied. MARTHA R. LUBOCH Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. McPhaull, 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.