SLEEP DISTURBANCES

STEVEN D. REISS · 2026 · Case ID: A26030387

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, an Air Force Veteran who served from May 2010 to May 2016, appeals the denial of service connection for insomnia disorder. The Veteran claims the condition is due to duties performed in nuclear security, experiencing grogginess and sleeplessness since 2015. She testified that these symptoms began while on nuclear security duty, leading to a hyperalert state and difficulty sleeping, which she believes are directly related to her MOS. The Veteran did not seek in-service treatment due to fear of career repercussions. A May 2022 VA examination opined the insomnia was less likely than not service-related, finding no evidence linking the current symptoms to service and stating no in-service sleep issues were documented. However, the Board found the evidence to be in approximate balance regarding the onset of insomnia disorder during service. The Board found the Veteran's testimony competent and credible, noting her consistent reports of insomnia since 2015 and her hyperalert state stemming from vigilant nuclear security duties. Despite the negative VA opinion, the Board found the Veteran's lay evidence regarding the continuous nature of her symptoms since service to be at least as probative for nexus. Applying the benefit of the doubt, the Board found the insomnia disorder related to service. Service connection for insomnia disorder is granted.

Rationale

Competent and credible lay evidence supports onset during service.; Evidence in approximate balance regarding onset during service.; Benefit of the doubt afforded to the Veteran.

Service Branch

AIR FORCE

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

220818-268824

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26030387
Decision Date: 04/02/26 Archive Date: 04/02/26

DOCKET NO. 220818-268824
DATE: April 2, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for insomnia disorder is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence is at least in approximate balance regarding whether the Veteran's insomnia disorder had its onset in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for insomnia disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force from May 2010 to May 2016.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2022 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied service connection for insomnia disorder.

In August 2022, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) framework, electing the hearing docket by the Board, disagreeing with the June 2022 rating decision.

In March 2026, a hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.

The Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the notification of the 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).

Here, because the Board is granting in full the benefit sought on appeal, the Board will proceed to adjudicate this appeal.

The Board notes the subsequent favorable rating decision by the RO in August 2024 granting service connection for anxiety and depressive disorder (also claimed as PTSD) with an evaluation of 70 percent effective December 8, 2023, but notes that this instant appeal stream remains before the Board. See, e.g., Johnson v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 151 (2025) (a pending appeal is not rendered moot by a subsequent award of service connection); see also Concepcion-Maldonado v. Collins, 38 Vet. App. 294 (2025) (a Legacy appeal seeking service connection is not automatically moot by virtue of an AMA rating decision awarding the same benefit).

Service connection

Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability). See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the weight of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must persuasively stand against a finding that the evidence is in "approximate balance" or "nearly equal" to the evidence that supports the claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Here, all three elements of service connection are established by the competent and credible lay and medical evidence of record as to insomnia disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection for insomnia disorder is granted.

The Veteran seeks service connection for insomnia disorder, on the basis that it is due to an in-service duties involved in nuclear security.
the evidence that supports the claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

Service connection for insomnia disorder is granted.

The Veteran seeks service connection for insomnia disorder, on the basis that it is due to an in-service duties involved in nuclear security. She testified that the current feelings of grogginess and sleeplessness which began in 2015 when she was performing nuclear security at night have been present since that time.

The Veteran specifically testified that she has been dealing with the symptoms that have now been medically associated with diagnosed insomnia disorder since performing her duties in 2015.

VA examination dated in May 2022 reflects the examiner opined the insomnia disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner found 'no evidence' linking her current symptoms to her service. The examiner stated there was no adequate evidence to indicate the presence of sleep issues or an ongoing sleep disorder during her service.

Favorable Findings identified in the rating decision on appeal include that the Veteran had been diagnosed with a disability, with VA examination in April 2019 showing a diagnosis of insomnia disorder. Also, it was noted that VAMC treatment records show a diagnosis of insomnia and symptoms of depression. Also, the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service, since her DD Form 214 and service personnel records confirm service as a member of the nuclear assets protection force.

Relevant to nexus, STRs do not document insomnia disorder findings or complaints.

The Board as finder of fact finds that the evidence is at least approximately balanced as to the theory that the current insomnia disorder began in service.

As to having recurrent symptoms since service, the Board finds the Veteran's testimony competent and credible. See also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372.

The Veteran testified that she feared for her military career, which is why she did not seek treatment in service. She worked in nuclear security and had to be very vigilant. She became very hyperalert and still is hyperalert. She cannot go to sleep and stay asleep because she is in "flight or fight mode." She is very groggy and irritable as a result in the morning. This can cause her to be irritable to children and to her husband. She reported she has had insomnia since 2015 and since. She thought she was going to serve for 20 years but could not do so. She feels the development of insomnia disorder was directly due to the circumstances of her nuclear MOS.

The Veteran's reports are consistent with the circumstances of her service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The lay and medical evidence shows that she was a member of the nuclear assets protection force, and the lay evidence is credible as to the current insomnia disorder symptoms beginning in service.

While the Board has considered the negative VA medical opinion that the insomnia disorder is not due to service and noting no evidence linking her current symptoms to her military service, it finds the Veteran's assertions as to the continuous nature of her symptoms since the duties involving nuclear security in service to be at least as probative as to nexus.

On balance, the evidence shows that the Veteran's insomnia disorder is related to service, thus, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces).

Because the competent and credible evidence supports the claim, service connection for insomnia disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b), See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

STEVEN D. RE
has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces).

STEVEN D. REISS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Nancy Rippel

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer