HYPERTENSION

Summary

The veteran, who served from November 1990 to May 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for high blood pressure, irritable bowel syndrome, and muscle hernia. The Board reviewed the claims based on the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 rating decisions. For high blood pressure and irritable bowel syndrome, the Board found that the evidence submitted in January 2025 was new but not relevant, as it did not tend to prove or disprove service connection or a current diagnosis. Therefore, readjudication was not warranted. For muscle hernia, the Board found no competent evidence of a current diagnosis during the pendency of the appeal, which is a necessary element for service connection. The veteran's own assertion of pain and compensation for a service-connected knee disability did not constitute a diagnosis. The Board noted that pyramiding is to be avoided and that the veteran's pain, while potentially a disability, did not establish a diagnosis of muscle hernia. As the evidence weighed against the claims, the benefit of the doubt doctrine was not applied. Service connection for high blood pressure, irritable bowel syndrome, and muscle hernia was denied.

Rationale

New evidence submitted was not relevant to the claim.; No new and relevant evidence since prior denial.; Weight of evidence against claim; benefit of doubt not applicable.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26033748
Decision Date: 04/13/26	Archive Date: 04/13/26

DOCKET NO. 250709-559268
DATE: April 13, 2026

ORDER

New and relevant evidence has not been received to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for high blood pressure.

New and relevant evidence has not been received to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for irritable bowel syndrome.

Service connection for muscle hernia as secondary to the service-connected disability of right knee joint osteoarthritis, limitation of extension is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. There has been no new and relevant evidence received in connection with the claim for service connection for high blood pressure since the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) June 2024 rating decision denying service connection for high blood pressure.

2. There has been no new and relevant evidence received in connection with the claim for service connection for high blood pressure since the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) September 2024 rating decision denying service connection for irritable bowel syndrome.

3. There is no evidence of record that the Veteran has been diagnosed with muscle hernia at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. New and relevant evidence has not been received, and readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for high blood pressure is not required.  38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501, 19.2(a)-(b).

2. New and relevant evidence has not been received, and readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for irritable bowel syndrome is not required.  38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501, 19.2(a)-(b).

3. The criteria for service connection for muscle strain are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1990 to May 1991.  

This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from two March 2025 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decisions.  In the March 7, 2025 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for high blood pressure and irritable bowel syndrome because the evidence submitted was not new and relevant.  In the March 28, 2025 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for muscle hernia. 

In a July 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 March 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decisions. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301.  In this case, evidence was added to the claims file after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal, those records were not considered by the Board in its decision.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. 

New and Relevant Evidence

VA will readjudicate a claim if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a)(1).  New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers.  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1).  "Relevant evidence" is evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue.  Id.

High Blood Pressure 

The Veteran asserts his current high blood pressure is secondary to his service-connected lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease.  See Fully Developed Claim, October 27, 2022.

In June 2024, the RO denied service connection for high blood pressure on the basis that the medical evidence did not support a nexus to military service or to a service-connected condition.  See Rating Decision, June 3, 2024.  The Veteran subsequently filed a Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, to include the claim for high blood pressure, in January 2025.  See Supplemental Claim Application, January 30, 2025.  The RO denied the Veteran's claim in a March 2025 rating decision based on the lack of
 secondary to his service-connected lumbosacral strain with degenerative arthritis and degenerative disc disease.  See Fully Developed Claim, October 27, 2022.

In June 2024, the RO denied service connection for high blood pressure on the basis that the medical evidence did not support a nexus to military service or to a service-connected condition.  See Rating Decision, June 3, 2024.  The Veteran subsequently filed a Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, to include the claim for high blood pressure, in January 2025.  See Supplemental Claim Application, January 30, 2025.  The RO denied the Veteran's claim in a March 2025 rating decision based on the lack of submission of new and relevant evidence.  See Rating Decision, March 7, 2025.

For the following reasons, readjudication of the claim of service connection for high blood pressure is not warranted.

In January 2025, the Veteran submitted a Supplemental Claim requesting readjudication of the claim of service connection for high blood pressure with the submission of new and relevant evidence.  See Supplemental Claim Application, January 30, 2025.  The Veteran submitted private treatment records from PM&R Spine Center and Minerva Acupuncture, lay evidence regarding pain he experiences related to his service-connected disabilities, and an internet article regarding high blood pressure.  

Although new, this evidence is not relevant to the Veteran's claim for service connection for high blood pressure because it is evidence that does not tend to prove or disprove a matter in issue.  Specifically, the new evidence does not tend to prove or disprove whether the Veteran's high blood pressure is related to service or a service-connected disability.  

The Board notes that the Veteran may, at any time, file another supplemental claim with the agency of original jurisdiction after receiving this decision and the additional evidence will be considered in connection with the new supplemental claim.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C(a)(1)(B), (b); 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2501, 20.1105(a).  If filed within one year, this supplemental claim will preserve the date of the claim denied herein as the effective date of the grant of the benefit or benefits sought.  38 U.S.C. § 5110(2)(B); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h).

For the foregoing reasons, as there is no new and relevant evidence since the June 2024 prior denial, the Board cannot readjudicate the claim of service connection for high blood pressure.  As the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  Cf. Annoni v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 463, 467 (1993) (the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable to applications to reopen a claim unless the threshold burden of submitting new and material evidence has been met).

Irritable Bowel Syndrome 

The Veteran asserts he has irritable bowel syndrome which is secondary to his service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder.  See Fully Developed Claim, August 20, 2024.

In September 2024, the RO denied service connection for irritable bowel syndrome on the basis that the September 2024 VA examiner reported there was no clinical evidence to support a current diagnosed disability.  See Rating Decision, September 17, 2024.  The Veteran subsequently filed a Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, to include the claim irritable bowel syndrome, in January 2025.  See Supplemental Claim Application, January 30, 2025.  The RO denied the Veteran's claim in a March 2025 rating decision based on the lack of submission of new and relevant evidence.  See Rating Decision, March 7, 2025.

For the following reasons, readjudication of the claim of service connection for irritable bowel syndrome is not warranted.

In January 2025, the Veteran submitted a Supplemental Claim requesting readjudication of the claim of service connection for irritable bowel syndrome with the submission of new and relevant evidence.  The Veteran submitted private treatment records from PM&R Spine Center and Minerva Acupuncture, lay evidence regarding pain he experiences related to his service-connected disabilities, and an internet article regarding high blood pressure.  

Although new, this evidence is not relevant to the Veteran's claim for service connection for irritable bowel syndrome because it is evidence that does not tend to prove or disprove a matter in issue.  Specifically, the new evidence does not tend to prove or disprove whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome.

The Board notes that the Veteran
 January 2025, the Veteran submitted a Supplemental Claim requesting readjudication of the claim of service connection for irritable bowel syndrome with the submission of new and relevant evidence.  The Veteran submitted private treatment records from PM&R Spine Center and Minerva Acupuncture, lay evidence regarding pain he experiences related to his service-connected disabilities, and an internet article regarding high blood pressure.  

Although new, this evidence is not relevant to the Veteran's claim for service connection for irritable bowel syndrome because it is evidence that does not tend to prove or disprove a matter in issue.  Specifically, the new evidence does not tend to prove or disprove whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome.

The Board notes that the Veteran may, at any time, file another supplemental claim with the agency of original jurisdiction after receiving this decision and the additional evidence will be considered in connection with the new supplemental claim.  38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C(a)(1)(B), (b); 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2501, 20.1105(a).  If filed within one year, this supplemental claim will preserve the date of the claim denied herein as the effective date of the grant of the benefit or benefits sought.  38 U.S.C. § 5110(2)(B); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h).

For the foregoing reasons, as there is no new and relevant evidence since the September 2024 prior denial, the Board cannot readjudicate the claim of service connection for irritable bowel syndrome.  As the weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  Cf. Annoni v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 463, 467 (1993) (the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable to applications to reopen a claim unless the threshold burden of submitting new and material evidence has been met).

Service Connection 

Muscle Hernia 

The Veteran asserts he has a muscle hernia secondary to his service-connected right knee disability.  See Veterans Application for Compensation or Pension, January 1, 2025.

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

With any claim for service connection, it is necessary for a current disability to be present.  See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007). The requirement that a current disability exists is satisfied if the claimant had a disability at the time his claim for VA disability compensation was filed or during the pendency of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Without a current diagnosis, there may be no service connection for the claimed condition.

Disability "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity."  See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that pain can constitute a current disability, even without an underlying diagnosis, if it causes sufficient functional impairment).  

The question before the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability claimed as muscle hernia, that was incurred in or related to service.

Based on a review of the evidence, the Veteran does not currently have, and at no time during the pendency of the appeal was he shown to have had muscle hernia. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time he files her claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim
 at no time during the pendency of the appeal was he shown to have had muscle hernia. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time he files her claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim.  As such, a diagnosis of muscle hernia, even if resolved, would necessarily need to have occurred during the pendency of the current appeal. 

VA treatment records show no diagnosis or treatment of muscle hernia. See CAPRI, received January 7, 2025.

In January 2025, the Veteran asserted that he cannot fully extend his right knee which causes him muscle pain due to having to compensate for his knee which thereby causes muscle hernia in his body (pain so severe, he is unable to sleep).  See Veterans Application for Compensation or Pension, January 1, 2025.  

Notably, however, pain alone, without an accompanying diagnosis of a present disease, can qualify as a disability" if it "reaches the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity."  See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1367-69 (Fed. Cir. 2018).  In this case, the Veteran is already service connected for a right knee disability and the pain associated with such disability.  The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses, known as pyramiding, is generally to be avoided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (2018).  The critical element in permitting the assignment of several ratings under various diagnostic codes is that none of the symptomology for any one of the disabilities is duplicative or overlapping with the symptomology of the other disability.  See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994).  

The Board finds there is no competent evidence to support a current diagnosis of muscle hernia during the pendency of the appeal.  The Veteran has provided no evidence in support of a diagnosis.  Therefore, the first element of service connection for muscle hernia is not met.  The presence of a current disability is the cornerstone of any service connection claim, and service connection is not warranted when there is no current disability.  See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). 

The Board cannot summon evidence where there is none.  If the Veteran can produce evidence of a current disability, he should do so with a Supplemental Claim along with the new and relevant evidence.  On this record, there is no competent medical evidence of a current diagnosis of muscle hernia.  The Veteran himself lacks the requisite medical training and credentials to render a diagnosis, and his opinion does not constitute competent evidence.  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

As the evidence of record weighs against the Veteran's claim for service connection for muscle hernia, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

 

 

RAY BARTO SLABBEKORN, JR.

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Ardalan, Nina

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.