HYPERTENSIVE HEART DISEASE

L. M. BARNARD · 2026 · Case ID: A26037408

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from November 7, 1968, to November 6, 1970, appeals the denial of service connection for congestive heart failure (CHF). The claim for CHF has been denied multiple times since 2017, with the most recent denial in December 2024. The veteran submitted a supplemental claim in June 2025, asserting that new and relevant evidence warranted readjudication. The Board found that a July 2025 VA examination and a January 2026 private cardiologist's statement were new and relevant, thus permitting readjudication under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d). The veteran initially attributed his CHF to in-service tobacco use, which is statutorily barred for service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1103. At a January 2026 hearing, the veteran raised a new theory linking his CHF to helicopter fuel and toxic chemical exposure as a helicopter mechanic. However, the Board found no evidence of TERA participation or medical evidence linking his CHF to service exposures. The Board gave more weight to the July 2022 VA examiner's opinion, which found no in-service diagnosis or cardiac abnormality, and the private cardiologist's opinion stating it was less likely than not that the condition resulted from service. The Board concluded that the evidence persuasively weighed against service connection, denying the claim.

Rationale

No in-service diagnosis or cardiac abnormality found in service treatment records.; Private cardiologist opined condition is less likely than not related to service.; VA examiner opined condition is not at least as likely as not related to service.; Claim based on tobacco use is statutorily barred.; Toxic exposure theory lacks supporting medical evidence.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250827-580564

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037408
Decision Date: 04/22/26 Archive Date: 04/22/26

DOCKET NO. 250827-580564
DATE: April 22, 2026

ORDER

New and relevant evidence having been received, readjudication of the claim for entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure is warranted.

Entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. New and relevant evidence was submitted after the December 2024 rating decision that denied entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that congestive heart failure began during active service or is otherwise related to a permissible in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 11103, 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.300, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from November 7, 1968, to November 6, 1970.

In June 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, and requested readjudication of entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure, which was most recently addressed in a December 2024 rating decision. The claim had also previously been denied in November 2017, July 2022, November 2022, and April 2023 rating decisions. In July 2025, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the supplemental claim decision on appeal, which found that new and relevant evidence had not been received. Therefore, the Board must determine whether new and relevant evidence has been received based only on the evidence of record at the time of the decision on appeal and any evidence submitted during an applicable evidentiary window.

In the August 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on January 15, 2026.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) supplemental claim 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. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the supplemental claim 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 claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

The Board notes that March 2023 and December 2024 memoranda were added to the file pursuant to the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics Act of 2022 (PACT Act) indicating that the Veteran did not have any toxic exposures during service and did not participate in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA).

1. New and relevant evidence having been received, readjudication of the claim for entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure is warranted.

Under the AMA, the standard for considering the merits of a previously decided claim is whether new and relevant evidence has been presented or secured to warrant readjudication. VA will readjudicate a claim if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d).

1. New and relevant evidence having been received, readjudication of the claim for entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure is warranted.

New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. The term "relevant evidence" means evidence that tends to prove or disprove a matter in issue. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108, 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). The "relevant evidence" standard is a lower standard than the previous "material evidence" standard because the statutory definition of "relevant" does not require that the new evidence relate to an unestablished fact or raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. The Board will consider this lower standard in deciding the Veteran's appeal.

Service connection for congestive heart failure (CHF) was most recently denied in a December 2024 rating decision. The Veteran did not submit a timely notice of disagreement or otherwise appeal the claim.

At the time of the December 2024 rating decision, the substantive evidence of record included the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) and post-service treatment records. The Veteran's claim was denied because there was no event, disease or injury in service; and the STRs did not contain complaints, treatment or diagnosis for the condition.

The evidence received since the December 2024 rating decision and prior to the July 2025 rating decision includes a private examiner's statement received June 2025 and a July 2025 VA examination. The Veteran submitted another statement from his private cardiologist in January 2026.

The private cardiologist's statement received in June 2025 appears to be identical to a previously submitted statement except for the date on the letter.

The July 2025 VA examination is new and relevant because it was not previously before VA adjudicators and relevant because it tends to prove or disprove a matter in the claim.

The January 2026 private cardiologist's statement is new and relevant because it was not previously before VA adjudicators and relevant because it tends to prove or disprove a matter in the claim.

Based on the above, the Board finds the evidence added to the claims file since the prior December 2024 rating decision to be both new and relevant, in that it tends to support the Veteran's contention that he has congestive heart failure. As such, readjudication of the claim is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d).

2. Entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure

The Veteran contends that his congestive heart failure and related cardiac disabilities are due to smoking since 1968 after joining the service.

At the January 2026 hearing, the Veteran raised the theory that his congestive heart failure is due to exposure to helicopter fuel and other toxic chemicals.

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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).

For claims received after June 9, 1998, service connection is precluded for any disability resulting from injury or disease attributable to tobacco use, even if the tobacco use occurred during service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1103; 38 C.F.R. § 3.300. Service connection is not precluded, however, where the disability resulting from injury or disease is otherwise shown to have been incurred or aggravated during service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.300(b)(1). The term "otherwise shown" means that the disability can be service connected on some basis other than the veteran's use of tobacco products during service, or that the disability became manifest during service. See id. Service connection is also not precluded when the disability appeared to the required degree within any applicable presumptive period, or if secondary service connection is established for ischemic heart disease or other cardiovascular disease. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.300(b)(2)-(3).

The question for the
.300. Service connection is not precluded, however, where the disability resulting from injury or disease is otherwise shown to have been incurred or aggravated during service. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.300(b)(1). The term "otherwise shown" means that the disability can be service connected on some basis other than the veteran's use of tobacco products during service, or that the disability became manifest during service. See id. Service connection is also not precluded when the disability appeared to the required degree within any applicable presumptive period, or if secondary service connection is established for ischemic heart disease or other cardiovascular disease. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.300(b)(2)-(3).

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of congestive heart failure, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of congestive heart disease began during service or is otherwise related to a permissible in-service injury, event, or disease.

In an August 2018 statement, the Veteran attributed his congestive heart failure to his use of tobacco products encouraged by a sergeant during his active duty service. As noted above, service connection is precluded for any disability resulting from injury or disease attributable to tobacco use, even if the tobacco use occurred during service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1103; 38 C.F.R. § 3.300. Accordingly, the Veteran's congestive heart failure cannot be service connected on the basis of tobacco use during service alone.

Private treatment records show the Veteran was not diagnosed with congestive heart failure or any other cardiac disability until 2014, decades after separation from service.

The Veteran's private cardiologist has submitted three statements regarding the Veteran's congestive heart failure received in April 2024, June 2025, and January 2026. The April 2024 and June 2025 statements are identical except for the date on the letter. In both statements, the private cardiologist opines that, "After review of pertinent records; it is my professional opinion that it is at least as likely as not that Mr. Robles's condition is not a result of events in his military service." The January 2026 letter indicated that the Veteran wished for him to note that he was a smoker in service and that heart disease is linked to smoking. The Board observes that neither of these opinions, on their face, link the Veteran's own congestive heart failure to his military service.

Further, the July 2022 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's congestive heart failure is not at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The rationale was there is no medical evidence of an in service diagnosis of CHF or other cardiac abnormality while in service. The examiner's opinion is probative, because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).

The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statement at the hearing that his congestive heart failure is related to exposure to helicopter fuel and other chemicals during service as part of his duties as a helicopter mechanic. However, VA has not found that the Veteran participated in a TERA, and the Veteran has not submitted any medical evidence linking his current congestive heart failure to any exposures in service. Accordingly, the Board does not find this argument persuasive.

The Veteran believes the claimed congestive heart failure is related to in-service tobacco use or toxic exposure. A claim for entitlement to service connection for congestive heart failure due to in-service tobacco use is barred by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 1103; 38 C.F.R. § 3.300. For other theories of entitlement, the Veteran in this case is not competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of pathology. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that the Veteran has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the private cardiologist and VA examiner's opinions that the Veteran's congestive heart failure is less likely than not related to service.

In conclusion, the evidence is persuasively against the award of service connection for
complex, as it requires knowledge of pathology. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that the Veteran has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the private cardiologist and VA examiner's opinions that the Veteran's congestive heart failure is less likely than not related to service.

In conclusion, the evidence is persuasively against the award of service connection for congestive heart failure, and the claim for service connection must be denied. As the evidence is persuasively against the claim, the benefit of the doubt does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107.

L. M. BARNARD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board M.D. Taylor, Counsel

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