INTERVERTEBRAL DISC SYNDROME

Summary

The veteran, who served from January 1982 to January 1986, appeals the denial of service connection for a low back disorder, a right knee disorder, a left knee disorder (claimed as secondary to the low back disorder), and hypertension. The Board found the evidence persuasively against service connection for all claimed conditions. For the low back and right knee claims, the Board noted the absence of in-service complaints, diagnoses, or treatment, and the lack of objective medical evidence linking these conditions to service. The Board also highlighted the veteran's failure to attend scheduled VA examinations for these claims, necessitating reliance on existing objective evidence, which did not support service connection. For the left knee, while acknowledging an isolated instance of treatment in service, the Board found the March 2017 VA examiner's opinion, which noted mild degenerative arthritis and attributed symptoms to the low back disorder and aging, to be more probative than the veteran's lay testimony. The secondary claim for the left knee was denied as the primary low back claim was also denied. For hypertension, the Board found no formal diagnosis in service or within a year of discharge, and no continuity of symptomatology. Post-service VA records showed treatment beginning in 2010, over 20 years after service, with no VA medical professional linking it to service. The Board denied all claims.

Rationale

No in-service complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for low back disorder.; No objective medical evidence linking low back disorder to service.; Veteran failed to attend scheduled VA examinations for this claim.; Lay assertions of in-service onset/etiology not competent evidence.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26004881
Decision Date: 04/23/26	Archive Date: 04/23/26

DOCKET NO. 19-04 719
DATE: April 23, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include as secondary to a lower back disorder, is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The most probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran's low back disorder is etiologically related to his service.

2. The most probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran's right knee disorder is etiologically related to his service.

3. The most probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran's left knee disorder is etiologically related to his service. Additionally, the Veteran is not service connected for a low back disorder such that secondary service connection could be awarded.

4. The most probative evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran's hypertension is etiologically related to his service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include as secondary to a low back disorder, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303; 3.310; Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1112, 1116, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from January 1982 to January 1986.

These matters come back to the Board of Veterans' Appeals on appeal from a Supplemental Statement of the Case issued in February 2026 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination on these issues in May 2023. A transcript is in the record.

At the outset, the Board would like to describe the procedural history of this case. The Veteran originally claimed these conditions in November 2016. VA requested an examination for the Veteran's left knee scheduled for January 2017. The Veteran missed that examination but quickly requested to reschedule explaining that the scheduling letter was sent to his old address. The Veteran did then attend a March 2017 examination regarding his knees. The Veteran's claims were denied in April 2017, and he filed a Notice of Disagreement in October 2017. This case eventually came before the Board in June 2023 where these claims were remanded. Specifically, the claims for the low back, right knee, and hypertension were remanded in order to obtain an examination after finding that VA's duty to assist has been triggered here. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). Additionally, the left knee claim was remanded, as the Veteran had raised a potential theory of entitlement via secondary service connection regarding his left knee and his low back. 

VA scheduled the requested examinations for August 14, 2023. The Veteran then failed to show up to any of the four scheduled examinations. To date, the Veteran has not provided VA with any explanation for why he did not appear for the scheduled examinations in August 2023, nor has he requested that the examinations be rescheduled. Although there is no explicit documentation indicating that the Veteran was provided with notice of the scheduled examination, it is presumed that the Veteran was indeed notified of the date of the scheduled examination, absent clear evidence to the contrary. Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 62, 64 (1992); Fithian v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 146
VA scheduled the requested examinations for August 14, 2023. The Veteran then failed to show up to any of the four scheduled examinations. To date, the Veteran has not provided VA with any explanation for why he did not appear for the scheduled examinations in August 2023, nor has he requested that the examinations be rescheduled. Although there is no explicit documentation indicating that the Veteran was provided with notice of the scheduled examination, it is presumed that the Veteran was indeed notified of the date of the scheduled examination, absent clear evidence to the contrary. Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 62, 64 (1992); Fithian v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 146, 150 (2010); see also Mindenhall v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 271 (1994). Consequently, the Board denied all of these claims in July 2024 primarily due to no nexus opinion existing in the record at all explaining the potential relationship between the Veteran's low back, right knee, and hypertension claims and the Veteran's service, and an adequate negative nexus opinion existing for the left knee. 

In July 2025 this case was remanded to the Board by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court). The Court determined that the Board's failure to acquire records from a Dr. B. Taylor was a duty to assist error. The Court gave two reasons for why the remand was necessary: 1) to potentially explain a gap in the Veteran's treatment history for his low back, right knee, and hypertension claims and 2) "insofar as Appellant was not afforded VA examinations for his low back and right knee claims, private treatment records from Dr. Taylor may be sufficient to trigger the duty to assist pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)." The Board notes that the second rationale regarding duty to assist was already triggered. The Board requested the examinations in July 2023 pursuant to McLendon, and the Veteran did not report. When the Board remanded this claim in December 2025 pursuant to the Court's order to obtain those records, VA sent the Veteran a Form 21-4142 on December 17, 2025, to gain permission to obtain the Dr. Taylor records. The Veteran never submitted a completed form and also did not send the records to VA himself. The Board does note that the Veteran was sent another letter requesting the Form on January 22, 2026, which was retracted by VA on January 27, 2026, which may have caused some confusion; however, the original December 2025 letter was still operative and elicited no response from the Veteran. 

Consequently, the Dr. Taylor records are still not in the Veteran's file. Nevertheless, the Board finds that it can proceed to adjudicate on the merits. The Board reminds the Veteran that while VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating his claim, that duty is not a one-way street, and he should attempt to provide all requested information relating to his claim. Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214, 224 (2000). The Board found the duty to assist was triggered without access to the Dr. Taylor records in its June 2023 remand. The Veteran did not show up to the examinations. The Board remanded these claims in December 2025 consistent with the Court's July 2025 ruling to obtain the Dr. Taylor records. The Veteran did not submit the required form to allow VA to request those records. Under these circumstances, and in acknowledgement of the Veteran's own responsibility to assist in the development of his claim, the Board finds that there was substantial compliance with the remand instructions by VA, and there is no prejudice in proceeding with the adjudication of this claim. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991).

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship ("nexus") between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 116
 or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship ("nexus") between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). 

1. Entitlement to service connection for a low back disorder.

2. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee disorder.

3. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disorder, to include as secondary to a low back disorder.

The Veteran contends that he has a low back disorder as well as a bilateral knee

disorder that are attributable to service. Specifically, he asserts that all three

disorders developed in service as a result of the physical demands of his duties as

an artillery handler, which required him to lift heavy ordinance and other material. See May 2023 Hearing. In the alternative, even if his low back disorder and bilateral knee disorders did not develop while in service, he believes that all three disorders are nevertheless caused by his in-service duties. Id. As a second alternative, he specifically asserts that his bilateral knee disorders are secondary to the low back disorder. See March 2017 VA medical opinion.

At the outset, the Board dismisses the Veteran's alternative theory of entitlement to

service connection on a secondary basis, as he has specifically restricted his

contentions to the bilateral knee disorder having been proximately due to or

aggravated by the low back disorder. As a reminder, secondary service

connection is based on either demonstrating that the disorder at issue was

proximately caused by a service-connected disability or that it was aggravated due

to an underlying service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Here, the Veteran's contentions focus solely on the bilateral knee disorder being secondary to the low back disorder, which the Board is otherwise denying as detailed below. As there is no other service-connected disability to which the Veteran contends his bilateral knee disorders are secondary, there is no further need to analyze this alternative theory of entitlement. Service connection for right and left knee disorders on a secondary basis is therefore denied.

The remaining question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a diagnosable low

back disorder as well as diagnosable bilateral knee disorders that began during

service or are at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or

disease.

The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a history of treatment for low

back symptomatology and bilateral knee symptomatology, the evidence is

persuasively against a finding that he has a diagnosable low back disorder and/or

bilateral knee disorders that began during active service, or are otherwise related

to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton

v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d).

A review of the Veteran's service treatment records does not reflect that the Veteran

ever complained of low back or right knee symptomatology or was diagnosed with

a low back disorder or a right knee disorder during service. The Board does

acknowledge that the Veteran sought treatment on one occasion for left knee pain

as reflected in a November 1984 outpatient note; however, there is no further

documentation of treatment for left knee pain following this isolated instance, and

there is no indication that he was diagnosed with a chronic disability at the time of

the treatment in November 1984. Of note, as detailed in a January 1986

memorandum, the Veteran waived the requirement to undergo a separation

examination, and so there is no documentation which would serve to memorialize

his medical status at the time of his discharge from service.

Post-service medical records show that the Veteran established care through VA in

March 2010, at which time he reported a long history of low back pain as well as a

lumbar spine discectomy in 2002. Thereafter, beginning in October 2012, he

started detailing that he was experiencing low back pain that radiated into his lower

extremities and resulted in a pulling sensation
 of

the treatment in November 1984. Of note, as detailed in a January 1986

memorandum, the Veteran waived the requirement to undergo a separation

examination, and so there is no documentation which would serve to memorialize

his medical status at the time of his discharge from service.

Post-service medical records show that the Veteran established care through VA in

March 2010, at which time he reported a long history of low back pain as well as a

lumbar spine discectomy in 2002. Thereafter, beginning in October 2012, he

started detailing that he was experiencing low back pain that radiated into his lower

extremities and resulted in a pulling sensation in his bilateral knees. Subsequent

records show continued treatment for low back pain and bilateral knee pain for the

remainder of the appeal period. At no point has any VA medical professional

associated any of the Veteran's musculoskeletal symptomatology with his service.

During the May 2023 hearing, the Veteran reported that he first began to

experience symptoms of a low back disorder while in service, and that he sought

treatment for a low back disorder on multiple occasions. According to him,

following service he received treatment for back pain through a private medical

provider, who prescribed him medication and administered shots. He also related

that the same medical provider prescribed him medication for alleviation of lower

extremity pain, to include pain in his bilateral knees. These records described are those from Dr. Taylor for which the Court remanded this case back to the Board and the Board subsequently remanded to the RO in order to obtain.

In support of the left knee disorder specifically, the Veteran was afforded a VA

knee examination in March 2017, wherein he detailed that he injured his left knee

in November 1984 when he was carrying a 200-pound artillery shell on his

shoulder and stepped into a hole, causing him to strain his left leg. According to

the Veteran, he sought treatment for left knee pain following this incident and was

only provided pain medication for alleviation of his pain. He acknowledges that he

did not seek any further treatment for left knee pain during the remaining two years

of his service. At the time of the examination, he reported that he experienced

chronic left leg and knee pain that radiated from the low back; he also noted that he

sometimes experienced these symptoms in his right lower extremity as well. After

an in-person evaluation, the examiner set forth diagnoses of bilateral degenerative

arthritis of the knees based on the results of radiographic examinations.

In an associated March 2017 medical opinion report, the examiner found that it

was less likely than not that the Veteran's left knee disorder was incurred in

service or is otherwise attributable to service. In support thereof, the examiner

highlighted the lack of follow-up treatment for left knee symptomatology

subsequent to the one isolated instance of treatment in November 1984.

Furthermore, the examiner noted that the Veteran exhibited only mild degenerative

arthritis in both knees consistent with aging and occupational impact and commented that had the Veteran experienced lasting trauma from an in-service

injury, the arthritis in the left knee would be significantly more severe than it is in

the right knee. Moreover, the examiner detailed that the Veteran's low back

disorder and associated radiculopathy contributed to the development of both the

right and left knee disorders, as reflected by the Veteran's manifestation of knee

symptomatology subsequent to his low back symptoms beginning. This opinion is

highly probative, as it is based on an extremely thorough review of the claims file

and a reference to the Veteran's documented medical history. Sklar v. Brown,

5 Vet. App. 140 (1993).

As noted above, the Veteran has not been afforded an examination in connection with his claim seeking service connection for a low back disorder or a right knee disorder. VA has already found that duty to assist was triggered in the June 2023 Board decision. Nevertheless, there is no new duty triggered here as the medical evidence of record remains unchanged. Specifically, although there is documentation of the Veteran having sought treatment for left knee pain while in

service, there is no such documented treatment for either low back or right knee

pain while in service. To that end, the Veteran has not presented any competent

evidence or testimony in support of a medical link between his low back or right knee claims and his service, and there are no records of the Veteran receiving a diagnosis of or treatment for either disorder until over 15 years after service. Moreover, as noted, the Veteran was scheduled for examinations in support of both claims, and he failed to appear for those examinations with no justification; therefore, the Board must rely on the objective medical evidence of record, which does not
 of record remains unchanged. Specifically, although there is documentation of the Veteran having sought treatment for left knee pain while in

service, there is no such documented treatment for either low back or right knee

pain while in service. To that end, the Veteran has not presented any competent

evidence or testimony in support of a medical link between his low back or right knee claims and his service, and there are no records of the Veteran receiving a diagnosis of or treatment for either disorder until over 15 years after service. Moreover, as noted, the Veteran was scheduled for examinations in support of both claims, and he failed to appear for those examinations with no justification; therefore, the Board must rely on the objective medical evidence of record, which does not suggest that either disorder is related to service.

While it is acknowledged that the Veteran has consistently reported that he has

experienced low back pain and right knee pain that began during service, there is

no objective evidence in the record which would suggest that the Veteran

developed a chronic low back disorder or right knee disorder while in service.

The Board must also highlight that the Veteran himself does not have the medical

training or credentials to offer an opinion as to a diagnosis or its etiology. Jandreau

v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Ultimately, without any objective medical evidence in support of the Veteran's

claim, the Board finds that no medical nexus exists between any diagnosable low back disorder or right knee disorder and an in-service injury, event, or

disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed.

Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Moreover, there is no indication that either

disorder developed within a year of service, and so the chronic presumption

cannot apply because the diagnoses occurred far outside the applicable

presumptive period. 38 U.S.C. § 1112, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. Furthermore,

there is no continuity of symptomatology after service to support the Veteran's

claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b), as the service treatment records lack the

documentation of the combination of manifestations sufficient to identify chronic

back or right knee symptomatology and sufficient observation to establish

chronicity during service and on a regular basis following service.

As for the left knee disorder, the absence of objective medical evidence

documenting any treatment for or a diagnosis of a knee disorder prior to 2012

coupled with the probative opinion of the March 2017 examiner far outweighs the

Veteran's assertion that his left knee disorder began in service and that his

symptoms have continued since his discharge from service. See Buchanan v.

Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). As such, the evidence is

persuasively against the claim of service connection for a left knee disorder on

either a direct basis under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) or based on continuity of

symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).

The Veteran may still be entitled to service connection for a left knee disorder if

all of the evidence establishes that the disorder is otherwise attributable to an in-

service occurrence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As stated above, however, the weight of

the objective medical evidence of record is against such a determination, as the

opinion of the March 2017 VA examiner is supported by the weight of the evidence

which shows that the Veteran was never evaluated as having a left knee disorder

in service and did not seek treatment for left knee symptomatology until 2012.

Furthermore, the Veteran does not have the medical expertise to competently

conclude that his left knee disorder is attributable to service. Jandreau, supra.

Therefore, the Board must conclude that the March 2017 VA examiner opinion

substantially outweighs the lay evidence of record, in light of the rationale

presented and the absence of training or credentials on the part of the Veteran, and so service connection for a left knee disorder as otherwise attributable to service

is also denied.

In summation, the evidence is persuasively against the Veteran's claims of service

connection for a low back disorder and bilateral knee disorders, and the benefit-

of-the-doubt standard of proof does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b)

4. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.

The Veteran contends that his diagnosed hypertension is attributable to
andreau, supra.

Therefore, the Board must conclude that the March 2017 VA examiner opinion

substantially outweighs the lay evidence of record, in light of the rationale

presented and the absence of training or credentials on the part of the Veteran, and so service connection for a left knee disorder as otherwise attributable to service

is also denied.

In summation, the evidence is persuasively against the Veteran's claims of service

connection for a low back disorder and bilateral knee disorders, and the benefit-

of-the-doubt standard of proof does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b)

4. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension.

The Veteran contends that his diagnosed hypertension is attributable to service.

Specifically, he asserts that the disorder developed in service and that it has

continued to the present. In the alternative, even if his hypertension did not

develop while in service, he believes that the disorder is nevertheless due to

service.

Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service if they were noted as

chronic in service, if they manifested to a compensable degree within one year of

discharge, or if continuity of the same symptomatology has existed since service,

with no intervening cause. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (b), 3.307,

3.309(a). Included within the purview of chronic diseases is hypertension.

38 C.F.R. § 3.309.

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has hypertension that began

during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or

disease. In the alternative, the question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a

chronic disease that manifested to a compensable degree in service or within the

applicable presumptive period, or whether continuity of symptomatology has

existed since service.

The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has hypertension, it did not manifest

to a compensable degree in service or within a presumptive period, and continuity

of symptomatology is not established. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113,

1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a).

To begin, for VA compensation purposes, the term "hypertension" means that the

diastolic blood pressure is predominantly 90mm or greater, and isolated systolic hypertension means that the systolic blood pressure is predominantly 160mm or greater with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90mm. Multiple blood pressure readings are required to confirm the diagnosis of hypertension with two or more readings on at least three different days. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101, Note 1.

During the May 2023 hearing, the Veteran reported that he first began undergoing

treatment for hypertension while in service in 1983. According to the Veteran, he

continued to receive treatment for the disorder ever since his discharge from

service, to include from the same private medical treatment provider that has

prescribed him medication for alleviation of his musculoskeletal pain. These are, once again, the Dr. Taylor records for which the Court remanded this case back to the Board and the Board subsequently remanded to the RO in order to obtain.

A review of available service medical records reflects that the Veteran was never

formally diagnosed with hypertension while in service. While it is acknowledged

that the Veteran had elevated blood pressure readings on multiple occasions while

in service and appears to have been ordered to undergo periodic blood pressure

testing while in service, as evidenced by a June 1985 outpatient record

documenting one such testing result, there is no indication from the available

service medical records that the Veteran was ever actually diagnosed with

hypertension. There are no more available service medical records indicating that

the Veteran exhibited blood pressure that even came close to qualifying as hypertensive for VA compensation purposes. Furthermore, as noted, the Veteran

waived the requirement of a separation examination at the time of his discharge from service, and so there is no record memorializing his medical status at the time

that he left service.

Post-service medical records show that the Veteran established care through VA in

March 2010, at which time he reported a history of treatment for hypertension.

Subsequent records show continued treatment for hypertension for the remainder

of the appeal period. At no point has any VA medical professional associated the

hypertension with the Veteran's service. Moreover,


hypertension. There are no more available service medical records indicating that

the Veteran exhibited blood pressure that even came close to qualifying as hypertensive for VA compensation purposes. Furthermore, as noted, the Veteran

waived the requirement of a separation examination at the time of his discharge from service, and so there is no record memorializing his medical status at the time

that he left service.

Post-service medical records show that the Veteran established care through VA in

March 2010, at which time he reported a history of treatment for hypertension.

Subsequent records show continued treatment for hypertension for the remainder

of the appeal period. At no point has any VA medical professional associated the

hypertension with the Veteran's service. Moreover, as there is no objective

evidence documenting that the Veteran had diagnosable hypertension within a year

of his discharge from service, the Board can also conclude that the Veteran's hypertension did not manifest within the applicable one-year presumptive period, and, accordingly, service connection for hypertension on a presumptive basis as a chronic disease is denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(3).

The Veteran has not been afforded an examination in connection with his claim

seeking service connection for hypertension, but VA does not have a duty to

provide one here, as there is no indication that the disorder may be associated

with the Veteran's service. See McLendon, supra. He has not presented any

competent evidence or testimony in support of the claim, and there are no records

of him receiving a diagnosis of or treatment for the disorder prior to 2010. The

Board also highlights that the Veteran was provided an opportunity to appear for a

scheduled examination and failed to do so with no justification provided. There is

simply no competent evidence to support that the disorder first documented over

20 years after the Veteran's discharge is related to service. The Veteran's own lay

assertions as to the onset and etiology of the hypertension do not constitute

competent evidence, as he lacks medical training or credentials. Jandreau, supra.

Accordingly, there is no further duty to provide the Veteran with an examination to

evaluate the etiology of his hypertension.

The fact remains that the claims file does not contain a documented diagnosis of

hypertension of hypertension until 2010, over 20 years after the Veteran was

discharged from service. This is persuasive evidence tending to demonstrate that

there is no continuity of symptomatology after service. The Veteran has provided

no objective medical evidence in support of his general contention that

his hypertension is attributable to service. Therefore, the evidence is persuasively

against the Veteran's service connection claim for hypertension based on continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) and also as a post-service

manifestation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Consequently, the benefit of the doubt

rule does not apply, and the claim is denied. 3 8 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v.

Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990).

 

 

A. C. MACKENZIE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Wood, Paul T.

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.