HYPERTENSION

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from May 1967 to July 1967, appeals the denial of service connection for hypertension and secondary service connection for an aneurysm and hemorrhagic stroke with residuals. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the veteran's DD-214, a Department of Defense memorandum regarding Nike Missile System operations, and the veteran's testimony about exposure to chemicals. The Board found the veteran competent and credible in his testimony regarding his exposures. A private medical opinion from March 2026 provided a positive nexus between the veteran's exposures and hypertension, which the Board found probative and persuasive, noting the absence of negative opinions. Consequently, service connection for hypertension was granted. For the secondary claims, the Board considered the existing service connection for hypertension and the residuals of aneurysm and hemorrhagic stroke. A March 2026 private medical opinion and a November 2025 VA examiner's assessment both linked the residuals to hypertension, with the private opinion being particularly detailed and probative. The Board found all elements for secondary service connection met. Therefore, service connection for residuals of aneurysm and hemorrhagic stroke secondary to hypertension was granted.

Rationale

Veteran competent and credible regarding exposures; Nike Missile System memorandum persuasive regarding chemical use; Positive nexus opinion from private examiner

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26036453
Decision Date: 04/20/26	Archive Date: 04/20/26

DOCKET NO. 260105-626081
DATE: April 20, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for an aneurysm and a hemorrhagic stroke with residuals to include as secondary to hypertension is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's hypertension is related to his active duty service.

2. The Veteran's aneurysm and hemorrhagic stroke with residuals is at least as likely as not related to his service-connected hypertension.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303

2. The criteria for secondary service connection for an aneurysm and a hemorrhagic stroke with residuals have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 1967 to July 1967 with National Guard service thereafter.

The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. The AMA became effective on February 19, 2019, and applies to all initial decisions issued after this date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400 (a)(1).

The Veteran in January 2026 submitted a Board Appeal Notice of Disagreement (VA Form 10182) following an October 2024, rating decision. The Veteran in his appeal chose the "Evidence Review Lane."

As explained in the Form 10182, per the "Evidence Review," the review is based on evidence of record at the time of December 2025, rating decision, and evidence submitted within 90 days of submission of the Form 10182. In this case a positive nexus opinion was submitted by the Veteran in March 2026.

As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that Veteran's claim are to be interpreted broadly. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). As the claims file contains evidence that the Veteran's claim for service connection for aneurysm and a hemorrhagic stroke is part-an- parcel with his claim for hypertension, the Board has thus recharacterized the Veteran's claim to encompass both disabilities.

The Board notes that this claim has returned to the Board following a July 2025 hearing and October 2025 Board remand.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a 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 entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits, 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 between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service-the so-called "nexus" requirement." Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has held that "[l]ay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional." Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[T]he Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence").

Service connection must be considered on the basis of the places, types, and circumstances of his service as shown by his service records, the official history of each organization in which he served, his medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. See 38 C
 symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional." Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[T]he Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence").

Service connection must be considered on the basis of the places, types, and circumstances of his service as shown by his service records, the official history of each organization in which he served, his medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, supra; and Buchanan v. Nicholson, supra.

Service connection may alternatively be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to, or the result of, a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). Secondary service connection may also be established for a disorder which is aggravated by a service-connected disability; compensation may be provided for the degree of disability (but only that degree) over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (b); Allen v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 374 (1995).

In order to prevail on the issue of secondary service connection, the record must show: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998); see also Allen, supra.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b).

1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension

There is no dispute that the Veteran has hypertension as noted in a March 2026 private examination. 

Turning to the Veteran's service, the Board notes that the Veteran's Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) listed in his DD-214 was Nike Hercules Missile Crew Member. The claims file also contains a December 1984 unclassified Department of Defense Memorandum titled "Historical Overview of the Nike Missile System." This memorandum outlines the use of trichlorethylene and trichloroethane in the normal operation Nike site. The Veteran also provided testimony in his July 2025 hearing about his exposure to vapor and putting cables in his mouth to clean them.

In reviewing this evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report what he did during his active duty service including exposure to vapor and putting cables in his mouth. The Board finds this evidence credible. Likewise, the Board has reviewed the December 1984 unclassified memorandum and finds it persuasive. Together, the Board finds that the totality of the evidence is sufficient to find that the Veteran was exposed to trichlorethylene and trichloroethane due to the specific facts of his case. 

Turning to the link between the Veteran's exposure and his hypertension, the Board notes that the Veteran provided a private medical examination and opinion in March 2026. This March 2026 private examiner took a detailed history from the Veteran, applied valid medical principles, and cited appropriate medical treatises. The Board finds this detailed review led to an insightful opinion on the nature of the Veteran's disability. As the Court of Veterans Claims has held most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning and the Board must be able to conclude that a medical expert has applied valid medical analysis to the significant facts of the particular case in order to reach the conclusion submitted in the medical opinion. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

Importantly, the Board notes that there is no negative opinion in the claims file. So, the Board is left with a probative positive nexus opinion. Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that all elements of service connection have been met, and service connection for a hypertension have been met, and thus service connection for a hypertension is granted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for an aneurysm and a hemorrhagic stroke with residuals to include as secondary to hypertension

At the onset, the Board notes that there is no dispute that the Veteran has residuals of aneurysm and hemorrhagic stroke as noted in the favorable findings of the December 2025 rating decision. Likewise, there is no dispute that the Veteran is now service connected
).

Importantly, the Board notes that there is no negative opinion in the claims file. So, the Board is left with a probative positive nexus opinion. Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that all elements of service connection have been met, and service connection for a hypertension have been met, and thus service connection for a hypertension is granted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for an aneurysm and a hemorrhagic stroke with residuals to include as secondary to hypertension

At the onset, the Board notes that there is no dispute that the Veteran has residuals of aneurysm and hemorrhagic stroke as noted in the favorable findings of the December 2025 rating decision. Likewise, there is no dispute that the Veteran is now service connected for hypertension as noted above. The only remaining element of service connection is an etiology, i.e. nexus, between the Veteran's hypertension and residuals of aneurysm and hemorrhagic stroke.

Turning to nexus, the Board finds the March 2026 private examination and opinion probative on the issue of nexus. Upon review, it is clear in the examination report that the medical clinician evaluated the Veteran's medical history and provided a rationale underlying his conclusion that the Veteran's current residuals of aneurysm and hemorrhagic stroke are etiologically related to his now service-connected hypertension. Additionally, this assessment is also supported by a November 2025 VA examiner's assessment. In this November 2025 VA examiner's opinion he notes, in sum, that high blood pressure can cause an aneurysm which then leads to hemorrhagic stroke. Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that the March 2026 private opinion is probative; furthermore, it is the only medical opinion that directly addresses this matter.  See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

Accordingly, all the elements of secondary service connection have been met, and thus, service connection of residuals of aneurysm and hemorrhagic stroke is granted.

 

 

GAYLE STROMMEN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Acosta, J.

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.