BRONCHITIS

Summary

The Veteran served in the U.S. Navy from November 1972 to November 1976. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on a Direct Review docket, meaning only evidence of record at the time of the prior Regional Office (RO) decision can be considered. The Veteran sought service connection for bronchitis, which was previously denied by the RO in September 2023. New evidence, specifically service treatment records from December 1972 showing treatment for bronchitis, was received, prompting the Board to grant the request to readjudicate the claim. However, the Board ultimately denied service connection for bronchitis. While the Board acknowledged the Veteran's current diagnosis of chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and COPD, and noted in-service treatment for bronchitis in 1972 and a complaint of wheezing in 1976, it found the evidence did not establish a nexus to service. The Board found a VA examiner's opinion that the condition was at least as likely as not related to service to have limited probative value because it failed to address a 37-year gap in treatment and the Veteran's significant smoking history. An addendum opinion, deemed more probative by the Board, concluded the chronic bronchitis was more likely than not secondary to the Veteran's long-term smoking history, and that the acute in-service bronchitis did not cause the current chronic condition. The Board also noted that while the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, he is not a medical expert and cannot opine on etiology. Consequently, the Board found the evidence not in approximate balance, rendering the benefit of the doubt doctrine inapplicable.

Rationale

In-service treatment for bronchitis documented; Current diagnosis of chronic bronchitis, emphysema, COPD; Most probative medical opinion links chronic condition to smoking history; In-service bronchitis resolved and not related to current chronic condition

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26028818
Decision Date: 03/31/26	Archive Date: 03/31/26

DOCKET NO. 250522-546632
DATE: March 31, 2026

ORDER

New and relevant evidence having been received, the request to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for bronchitis is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for bronchitis is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran submitted service treatment records relating to his claim for entitlement to service connection for bronchitis.

2. The most probative evidence does not indicate the Veteran's current bronchitis condition was incurred in or due to his time in service.  

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for bronchitis has been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bronchitis has not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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 Navy from November 1972 to November 1976. 

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an February 2025 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

In the May 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2025 rating decision on appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.301.  Any evidence submitted after the RO decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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 claim[s], 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 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).

Generally, establishing service connection 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.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits.  38 U.S.C. § 1154(a).  Lay testimony is competent to prove that a claimant exhibited certain lay-observable symptoms and the time those symptoms appeared.  Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994).  Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability that are subject to lay observation.  38 U.S.C. § 1153(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In determining whether direct and/or secondary service connection is warranted, the Board shall consider the benefit of the doubt doctrine.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  A Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when evidence is in approximate balance.  38 U.S.C. § 5107.  The benefit of the doubt rule does not require that the evidence be in exact equipoise, evidence is of approximate balance
.S.C. § 1153(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

In determining whether direct and/or secondary service connection is warranted, the Board shall consider the benefit of the doubt doctrine.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  A Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when evidence is in approximate balance.  38 U.S.C. § 5107.  The benefit of the doubt rule does not require that the evidence be in exact equipoise, evidence is of approximate balance when the evidence in favor of and opposing the Veteran's claim is found to be almost exactly or nearly equal.  Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

New and Relevant Evidence

In general, rating decisions and Board decisions that are not timely appealed are final.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1103.

A claimant or his or her authorized representative, if any, who disagrees with a prior VA decision may file a supplemental claim by submitting in writing or electronically a complete application on a form prescribed by the Secretary any time after the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issues notice of a decision, regardless of whether the claim is pending or has become finally adjudicated. If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the AOJ will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record.  If new and relevant evidence is not presented or secured, the AOJ will issue a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence to readjudicate the claim.  In determining whether new and relevant evidence is presented or secured, VA will consider any VA treatment records reasonably identified by the claimant and any evidence received by VA after VA issued notice of a decision on the claim and while the evidentiary record was closed.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.

New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim. Relevant evidence includes evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1).

The evidentiary record for a supplemental claim includes all evidence received by VA before VA issues notice of a decision on the supplemental claim.  For VA to readjudicate the claim, the evidentiary record must include new and relevant evidence that was not of record as of the date of notice of the prior decision.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(b).

Upon receipt of a substantially complete supplemental claim, VA's duty to assist in the gathering of evidence under 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 is triggered and includes any such assistance that may help secure new and relevant evidence as defined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a) to complete the supplemental claim application.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(c).

1. New and relevant evidence having been received, the request to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for bronchitis is granted.

In a September 2023 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for bronchitis because the evidence did not show that the condition occurred in or was caused by service.  The Veteran did not appeal and that decision became final.  

The relevant evidence received since the denial consists of service treatment records showing that the Veteran was treated for bronchitis in December 1972.  See June 2024 Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility.    

The Board finds this evidence is new as it was not previously before VA adjudicators.  The evidence is also relevant because it tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in the claim. 

As such, the Veteran's request to readjudicate his claim of service connection for bronchitis is granted. 

2. Service connection for bronchitis is denied.

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for bronchitis.  See November 2024 VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application; May 2025 VA Form 10182 - Notice of Disagreement.  

Under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings by the RO in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error.  38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).  In the February 2025 rating decision, the RO made the following favorable findings: (1) the Veteran has been
 such, the Veteran's request to readjudicate his claim of service connection for bronchitis is granted. 

2. Service connection for bronchitis is denied.

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to service connection for bronchitis.  See November 2024 VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application; May 2025 VA Form 10182 - Notice of Disagreement.  

Under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings by the RO in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error.  38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).  In the February 2025 rating decision, the RO made the following favorable findings: (1) the Veteran has been diagnosed with a disability; the September 2023 VA examination shows diagnosis of COPD, emphysema, and chronic bronchitis; and (2) the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during your service; service treatment records (STR) from October 1976 note a complaint of wheezing and breathing problems.

Given the Veteran's current diagnosis and a qualifying event, injury, or disease, having its onset in service, the Board finds the first and second elements for service connection, a current disability and an in-service incurrence or aggravation, are established.  See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F. 3d 1163, 1167.

Therefore, the only remaining issue is whether a nexus can be established.

The Veteran underwent a VA examination for his condition in July 2023 where he was diagnosed with emphysema, COPD, and chronic bronchitis.  The examiner opined that the Veteran's condition was at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness.  The examiner reasoned that the service treatment records documented bronchitis in January and June 1976, which developed into chronic bronchitis, emphysema, COPD, and benign neoplasms and that the Veteran continued to express shortness of breath, wheezing, and congestion which extended to VA recorded documentation in 2013 as the Veteran was homeless and not connected with VA prior to 2013.  

The Board finds this opinion has very limited probative value.  The opinion fails to address the 37 year gap in treatment from 1976 to 2013 and also fails to address the Veteran's significant smoking history.  See CAPRI Records - September 2013 to November 2024.  VA treatment records show that the Veteran reported smoking cigarettes daily (one and a half packs per day) for more than 40 years.   

The Veteran past homelessness is a serious issue, but the Board cannot ignore such evidence regarding such a smoking history. 

An addendum opinion from August 2023 indicated that the Veteran's current condition was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness.  The examiner reasoned that while the Veteran's records document bronchitis in service, he was treated and the condition resolved.  The Veterans' chronic bronchitis that has persisted for the past decade is more likely than not secondary to his smoking history.  As the bronchitis on active duty was acute and infectious, the examiner opined that the chronic bronchitis that he suffers now is not related to his active duty bronchitis that occurred five decades ago.  

The Board finds this opinion more probative as it addresses both the Veteran's in-service treatment for bronchitis and his long history of smoking.  

(Continued on the next page)

?

The Board also acknowledges the Veteran's lay statements and his belief that his bronchitis is related to his military service.  While the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, he is not a medical expert and is not competent to diagnose bronchitis or opine on its etiology.  Here, the best medical evidence does not support that his bronchitis was incurred in or related ot his military service, and this evidence cannot be ignored.   

Accordingly, the current competent and probative evidence of record is not in approximate balance with regard to an in-service condition or nexus between his current condition and his service.  As such, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply, and the Board concludes that service connection for bronchitis is not warranted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

 

 

John J. Crowley

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Murphy

The
 was incurred in or related ot his military service, and this evidence cannot be ignored.   

Accordingly, the current competent and probative evidence of record is not in approximate balance with regard to an in-service condition or nexus between his current condition and his service.  As such, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply, and the Board concludes that service connection for bronchitis is not warranted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

 

 

John J. Crowley

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Murphy

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.