Citation Nr: 22012267 Decision Date: 03/03/22 Archive Date: 03/03/22 DOCKET NO. 17-24 434 DATE: March 3, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is granted. FINDING OF FACT Sleep apnea had its onset during the Veteran's active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for sleep apnea have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active naval service from January 1986 to January 2006. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in May 2019. In a September 2021 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to service connection for his diastolic dysfunction. This constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal. The issue currently on appeal was remanded for additional development and has since been returned to the Board for further appellate review. The Veteran asserts that his sleep apnea had its onset during active service. In the alternative, the Veteran has asserted that his sleep apnea is secondary to service-connected hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with valvular cardiopathy and diastolic dysfunction. Service treatment records are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of sleep apnea, or symptoms that could be attributed to a later diagnosis of sleep apnea. Nonetheless, the Veteran is competent to report the onset and continuity of symptoms associated with sleep apnea. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran credible in that respect. Additionally, the Veteran's wife observed that the Veteran was fatigued on a daily and for many years snored loudly in his sleep. The Board finds that laypersons are competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Post-service medical records show that the Veteran snored in his sleep in May 2006, within a year of discharge from active service. In July 2009, he was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea by sleep study. Although there is a January 2020 VA medical opinion of record against the claim, the Board finds that the opinion is inadequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, the examiner did not address the May 2016 medical record notation for snoring in the Veteran's sleep within a year of his separation from active service. Moreover, the Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In this case, the Veteran is competent to identify symptoms related to sleep apnea, and report on the chronicity of symptomatology since active service. Moreover, his statements have been found credible. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim is in approximate balance. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2018); Lynch v. McDonough, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 37307, No. 2020-2067 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 17, 2021). D. Ware Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umez-Eronini, 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.