BRONCHITIS

Summary

The veteran, who served from May 1980 to April 1992, August 2001 to May 2002, January 2003 to July 2005, and February 2010 to April 2011, appeals the denial of service connection for chronic bronchitis. The veteran claimed this condition was due to toxic exposure in Southwest Asia, and alternatively, secondary to service-connected asthma, COPD, or bronchitis. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the veteran's service treatment records and private medical records. While the veteran reported a history of bronchitis and symptoms consistent with COPD and asthma, the Board found no current diagnosis of chronic bronchitis in the record. The VA examiner noted the veteran's diagnoses of asthma and COPD, and that the veteran reported symptoms consistent with bronchitis during service, but ultimately opined that the claimed bronchitis was less likely than not caused by toxic exposure, noting the absence of a current diagnosis. The Board concluded that the evidence weighed against a finding of chronic bronchitis, denying service connection for this condition. The case was remanded for further development regarding service connection for obstructive sleep apnea, with specific instructions for the VA examiner to address the etiology of sleep apnea, its relation to service, toxic exposures, and its potential secondary connection to obesity and other service-connected disabilities, including providing opinions on aggravation.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of chronic bronchitis found in the record.; Evidence persuasively weighs against finding chronic bronchitis.; Veteran's reported symptoms attributed to COPD and asthma.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038466
Decision Date: 04/24/26	Archive Date: 04/24/26

DOCKET NO. 251128-629099
DATE: April 24, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for chronic bronchitis is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had chronic bronchitis at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bronchitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active service from May 1980 to April 1992 and August 2001 to May 2002, and from January 2003 to July 2005, and February 2010 to April 2011. 

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of the April 2025 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 

In the February 27 2026, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 RO decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the RO issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 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. 

However, because the Board is remanding the claims of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the RO in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii).

Neither the Veteran nor any representative has raised any issues with regard to the duty to notify or duty to assist as they pertain to the issues considered in this decision. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361   (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

The analysis in this decision focuses on the most relevant evidence and on what the evidence shows or does not show with respect to the issues denied in this decision. The Veteran should not assume that evidence that is not explicitly discussed in this decision has been overlooked. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (noting that the law requires only that reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant be addressed).

SERVICE CONNECTION

Service connection may be established for disability due to a disease or injury that was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also 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 general, in order to prevail on the issue of service connection the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service inc
 requires only that reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant be addressed).

SERVICE CONNECTION

Service connection may be established for disability due to a disease or injury that was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also 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 general, in order to prevail on the issue of service connection the evidence 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

1. Entitlement to service connection for bronchitis

The Veteran contends that he has a diagnosis of bronchitis. He stated the claimed bronchitis was due to exposure when he served in Southwest Asia.

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, or proximately due to or aggravated by a service-connected disability.  

The Board noes that the Veteran is already service-connected for asthma with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.  

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current chronic bronchitis disability and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

The Veteran's service treatment records reflect that the Veteran reported that he has had bronchitis during a July 2017 reserve retention examination. 

The Veteran provided private treatment records that reflect that the Veteran himself reported that he had been diagnosed with bronchitis in 1997, but these records do not demonstrate that the Veteran has had a current diagnosis of chronic bronchitis at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. See March 2011 private treatment record. The Veteran submitted undated private treatment records in December 2024 that noted that the Veteran reported a history of bronchitis and his symptoms were worse in the winter. The assessment was that the Veteran's COPD and asthma were doing better. There were no notations regarding the Veteran being treated for bronchitis. The Veteran submitted additional private treatment records that noted a cough, COPD, dyspnea, tobacco use, and nonspecific abnormal finding of lung field, but no diagnosis of bronchitis. The Veteran was referred to the VA for further evaluation of possible bronchitis, but no diagnosis.  

In a February 2024 VA examination, the examiner indicated that the Veteran has a diagnosis of asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The Veteran reported that during his military service he developed what he describes as some shortness of breath and coughing with physical training. He was always told that he had bronchitis. The Veteran noted that in the last couple years he experienced some shortness of breath with exertion. He reported he went to a pulmonologist Dr. A. W. and pulmonary function tests were ordered which were abnormal. The Veteran reported that he was diagnosed with asthma, bronchitis and COPD. He was placed on an inhaler. The February 2024 VA examiner noted in the evidence reviewed that the Veteran's February 2023 treatment records from Dr. A. W. indicated the "Veteran was seen for cough and some shortness of breath with activity. Diagnosis was COPD with likely asthmatic component. Recommendation Breo, albuterol as needed."

The examiner opined that the Veteran's claimed bronchitis was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) caused by the indicated toxic exposure risk activity(ies), after considering the total potential exposure through all applicable military deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities of the Veteran. The examiner noted that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of bronchitis. 

The record does not reflect that he has been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis by a competent medical source. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (199
 bronchitis was less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately balanced or nearly equal) caused by the indicated toxic exposure risk activity(ies), after considering the total potential exposure through all applicable military deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities of the Veteran. The examiner noted that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of bronchitis. 

The record does not reflect that he has been diagnosed with chronic bronchitis by a competent medical source. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of sections 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Therefore, entitlement to service connection for chronic bronchitis must be denied. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's private treatment providers have diagnosed the Veteran with asthma and COPD, but not bronchitis at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. The Veteran reported a history of bronchitis, but the evidence before the Board does not demonstrate that the Veteran has a current diagnosis. 

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). If the evidence is not in approximate balance or nearly equal in the veteran's favor, the claim must be denied. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

In this case, the Board does not find that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, as the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had chronic bronchitis at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. The Veteran's private treatment providers noted that the Veteran's symptoms of coughing and shortness of breath were related to his COPD.

The Veteran may file a supplemental claim and submit treatment records that reflect that he is currently being treated for bronchitis or has been treated for bronchitis during the pendency of his claim. The Board notes that the Veteran's records show that the Veteran himself reported a history of bronchitis which is not sufficient. Instead, he must show treatment records that demonstrate actual treatment versus reports of a history of a condition that was not within the pendency of his claim. 

REASONS FOR REMAND

1. Entitlement to service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is remanded.

The Veteran contends that his sleep apnea is related to his active military service. He contends it was caused by exposure in Southwest Asia. In the alternative, the Veteran contends that his sleep apnea is related to his service-connected asthma, and obstruction of airway, or bronchitis (undiagnosed). He also contends that his sleep apnea could be related to his COPD, tinnitus or hypertension.

The Board finds that duty to assist errors occurred prior to the April 2025 rating decision on appeal. Specifically, the Board finds that while VA secured medical opinions, the Veteran's lay statements, treatise materials submitted, and buddy statements were not addressed in the opinions. In addition, the Board finds that the secondary service connection medical opinions did not provide secondary aggravation medical opinions. The TERA medical opinion only provided a conclusionary statement. Finally, the Board notes that an intermediate step theory of entitlement was raised by the record regarding obesity. Thus, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to address the duty to assist errors by obtaining addendum medical opinions.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

1. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate medical professional who has the requisite experience to render the requested medical opinions. Provide the examiner with the Veteran's complete record, to include a copy of all remands, and the claims folder. No examination of the Veteran is necessary unless the examiner deems otherwise.

2. After thoroughly reviewing the Veteran's expanded claims file, the examiner must address the following:

(a.) Determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

(b.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the OSA was incurred in, or is otherwise etiologically related to his military service;

(c.) Is it
. Obtain an addendum opinion from an appropriate medical professional who has the requisite experience to render the requested medical opinions. Provide the examiner with the Veteran's complete record, to include a copy of all remands, and the claims folder. No examination of the Veteran is necessary unless the examiner deems otherwise.

2. After thoroughly reviewing the Veteran's expanded claims file, the examiner must address the following:

(a.) Determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea (OSA).

(b.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the OSA was incurred in, or is otherwise etiologically related to his military service;

(c.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the OSA due to the total potential toxic exposure from the Veteran's military deployments; or,

(d.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the OSA was due to the synergistic, combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities (TERA)?

3. The examiner must then opine the following:

(a.) Is it at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that the Veteran's service-connected disabilities caused the Veteran to become obese?	

(b.) If so, was the obesity, as a result of the service-connected disabilities, a substantial factor in causing the Veteran's sleep apnea?

(c.) Would the Veteran's sleep apnea have not occurred but for the obesity caused by the service-connected disabilities?

(d.) Whether the Veteran's sleep apnea disability is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) proximately due to any of his service-connected disabilities.

(e.)  Whether the Veteran's sleep apnea is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) aggravated beyond its natural progression by any of his service-connected disabilities.

i.	The examiner must specifically address the Veteran's relevant lay statements, buddy statements, and treatise materials.

ii.	The examiner must provide the underlying reasons for any opinions provided. If the examiner is unable to provide this opinion without resorting to speculation, he or she must indicate why this is so.

iii.	If aggravation is shown, the examiner should quantify the degree of aggravation, if possible. The question of secondary aggravation must be addressed separately from the question of secondary causation. The examiner must note that an opinion to the effect that one disability is not "caused by," "a result of," or "secondary to" another disability does not answer the question of aggravation and will necessitate a further opinion.

 

MICHAEL MARTIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Quist, 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.