HYPERTENSION

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from June 1959 to April 1963, appeals the denial of service connection for hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease. The veteran contended that his hypertension and coronary artery disease were linked to herbicide (Agent Orange) exposure during service in Thailand from March 1961 to May 1961. However, the Board found that this period of service predated the presumptive period for herbicide exposure in Thailand. While the veteran testified to witnessing herbicide spraying and handling contaminated materials, the Board found this testimony insufficient without objective evidence. A VA memorandum from the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) found no evidence to support the claimed exposure. The Board concluded that the evidence, including the lack of objective support and the JSRRC findings, weighed against herbicide exposure. Consequently, service connection for hypertension and coronary artery disease could not be established on this basis. The Board also noted that the service treatment records showed no in-service complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for these conditions, with the first evidence appearing years after service. For chronic kidney disease, the veteran sought secondary service connection due to hypertension. As hypertension was not service-connected, this secondary claim could not be established. The Board found no other support for chronic kidney disease, noting its absence in service records and its first appearance years after service. The persuasive weight of the evidence was against all claims, and the benefit of the doubt rule was not applicable.

Rationale

Weight of evidence against in-service onset or aggravation; No in-service complaints, treatment, or diagnosis; First evidence of condition years after service

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26009352
Decision Date: 02/02/26	Archive Date: 02/02/26

DOCKET NO. 250619-549089
DATE: February 2, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for hypertension is denied.  

Service connection for coronary artery disease is denied.  

Service connection for chronic kidney disease is denied.  

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran was not exposed to an herbicide agent, including Agent Orange, during his service.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that hypertension began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that coronary artery disease began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

4. The Veteran's chronic kidney disease was not caused by or aggravated by a service-connected disability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for hypertension are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for coronary artery disease are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for chronic kidney disease are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from June 1959 to April 1963.  

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2025 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

The rating decision on appeal was issued in May 2025 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.  

In September 2024, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a May 2024 decision.  In May 2025, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior May 2024 decision.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2025 decision and any evidence submitted during an applicable evidentiary window.  

In the June 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket.  A Board hearing was held on October 2025.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).  If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.  If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted directly as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) The existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir.
 evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted directly as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) The existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, certain diseases, including prostate cancer, may be service connected if the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 1116 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) are met, even though there is no record of such disease during service.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(d), 3.309(e).  Veterans who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam from February 28, 1961, to May 7, 1975, shall be presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent, including Agent Orange, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the Veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii).  

Recently, the PACT Act was signed into law.  The PACT Act expands the presumption of in-service herbicide agent exposure to service in Thailand during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on June 30, 1976, without regard to where on the base the veteran was located or what military job specialty the veteran performed.  Additionally, the PACT added hypertension to the list of presumed to be associated with exposure to herbicides under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. The effective and applicability date of the presumption is October 1, 2022.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1116.

1. Service connection for hypertension.  

2. Service connection for coronary artery disease.  

The Veteran seeks service connection for hypertension and coronary artery disease.  He contends that he was exposed to herbicides (Agent Orange) during his service in Thailand.  The Board will discuss the issues of hypertension and coronary artery disease together, as they both based on the same theory of entitlement.  

Review of the Veteran's treatment records reveals diagnoses of hypertension and coronary artery disease.  

Turning to the second element of service connection, in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, the Board notes that the weight of the persuasive evidence is against finding that the Veteran's hypertension and coronary artery disease were incurred or aggravated during service.  The objective medical evidence of record fully supports that conclusion.  

The Board notes that the Veteran's service personnel records (SPRs) do not show that the Veteran was deployed to Vietnam.  Although the Veteran's SPRs indicate that the Veteran served in Udon, Thailand from March 1961 to May 1961, the Board notes that this period of service precedes the presumptive period which VA recognizes herbicide agents were used in Thailand (i.e., January 1962 to June 1976).  Thus, a presumption of herbicide exposure is not warranted on those theories.  

Moreover, the Veteran testified that he witnessed Marines spraying herbicide from military cargo trucks and being sprayed by C130s.  See October 2025 Board Hearing Transcript.  Additionally, the Veteran contends that he was exposed to herbicide through the bodies of deceased service members that he placed in green body bags.  See Id.  

An April 2022 VA memorandum from the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) Coordinator provided that a professional researcher from the Veterans Benefits Administration completed comprehensive research on the Veteran's claimed exposure while assigned to the Company C 7th Engr BN FMF from March-May 1961.  The researcher found no evidence to support documentation of the Veteran's claimed exposure.  

The Board finds that the responses from the JSRRC Coordinator regarding Agent Orange exposure in Thailand weigh against the Veteran's statement that he was exposed to herbicides, prior to the presumptive, or handled organic or inorganic material contaminated with Agent Orange.  There is no objective evidence that he was otherwise exposed to an herbicide agent.  His bare statements asserting such exposure are not sufficient in themselves to establish this fact, as he may have misremembered his activities and duties in Thailand or misunderstood the nature of what he
 comprehensive research on the Veteran's claimed exposure while assigned to the Company C 7th Engr BN FMF from March-May 1961.  The researcher found no evidence to support documentation of the Veteran's claimed exposure.  

The Board finds that the responses from the JSRRC Coordinator regarding Agent Orange exposure in Thailand weigh against the Veteran's statement that he was exposed to herbicides, prior to the presumptive, or handled organic or inorganic material contaminated with Agent Orange.  There is no objective evidence that he was otherwise exposed to an herbicide agent.  His bare statements asserting such exposure are not sufficient in themselves to establish this fact, as he may have misremembered his activities and duties in Thailand or misunderstood the nature of what he was handling.  Based on the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran's service, and considering the information provided by the JSRRC Coordinator, the evidence does not support herbicide exposure.  

Accordingly, as herbicide exposure is not established, service connection may not be established for hypertension and coronary artery disease on the basis that it is linked to such exposure, presumptively or otherwise.

The record does not otherwise support service connection for hypertension and coronary artery disease.  Review of the Veteran's service treatment records documents no evidence of chronic complaints, treatment or diagnosis related to hypertension and/or coronary artery disease while on active duty.  The first evidence of hypertension and coronary artery disease is years after service.  

The Veteran, however, has not provided details alleging any in-service event or diagnosis, beyond herbicide exposure, that could be related to his hypertension and coronary artery disease.  As discussed above, the service treatment records do not support the Veteran's claim of onset of his disability during service.  In fact, the Veteran was not diagnosed until many years after service discharge.  The absence of post-service complaints, findings, diagnosis, or treatment for many years after service is one factor that tends to weigh against a finding of continuous symptoms after service separation.  See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that the lack of contemporaneous medical records is one fact the Board can consider and weigh against the other evidence, although the lack of such medical records does not, in and of itself, render the lay evidence not credible).  Thus, any assertions that he may make as to onset during service with subsequent continuity of are not supported by the objective evidence of record.  

The objective medical evidence ultimately outweighs the Veteran's lay contentions that his disability is related to service.  See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1372. (explaining in footnote 4 that a veteran is competent to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg, but not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994) (cautioning that lay testimony that the Veteran suffered a particular illness (bronchial asthma) was not competent evidence because matter required medical expertise).  

Although the Veteran has established current disabilities, the weight of the persuasive evidence weighs against a finding of an in-service event, injury or disease, or that the Veteran's hypertension and coronary artery disease are not causally related to his service.  Since the persuasive weight of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not applicable.  See 38 U.S.C. §5107 (b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  For these reasons, service connection for hypertension and coronary artery disease is denied.  

3. Service connection for chronic kidney disease.

The Veteran is pursuing secondary service connection for chronic kidney disease.  The Board will limit its analysis accordingly.  The Veteran contends that his chronic kidney disease is due to his claimed hypertension.  

Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b).

Review of the Veteran's treatment record indicates that he has a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease.  

Turning to the second element of secondary service connection, the Board notes that the Veteran is not currently service connected for hypertension, therefore, entitlement to service connection for
 established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b).

Review of the Veteran's treatment record indicates that he has a diagnosis of chronic kidney disease.  

Turning to the second element of secondary service connection, the Board notes that the Veteran is not currently service connected for hypertension, therefore, entitlement to service connection for chronic kidney disease secondary to hypertension cannot be established.  

The record does not otherwise support service connection for chronic kidney disease.  Review of the Veteran's service treatment records documents no evidence of chronic complaints, treatment or diagnosis related to chronic kidney disease while on active duty.  The first evidence of chronic kidney disease is years after service.  

Accordingly, the weight of the persuasive evidence is against the claim for service connection for chronic kidney disease.  The benefit of the doubt rule does not apply, and the Veteran's claim for service connection for chronic kidney disease is denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. at 54-56.

 

 

Cory M. Picton

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Higgins, Jeffery

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.