HYPERTENSION

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from October 1971 to October 1975, appeals the denial of service connection for a heart disability. The Veteran testified at a Board hearing in January 2026, stating he experienced shortness of breath before separation and continued to have symptoms, leading to a diagnosis of an irregular heartbeat and pacemaker implantation. However, the Board found the evidence weighed against service connection. Service treatment records were negative for heart symptoms, and the separation examination noted a normal heart, with the Veteran denying any cardiac complaints. The Board noted that prior to the RO decision, no argument or evidence linked the heart disability to service, and no VA examination was provided due to insufficient competent medical evidence. While the Veteran's hearing testimony provided new information, the Board found no pre-decisional duty-to-assist error. The Board also found the Veteran's opinion on service connection not competent and his assertions of persistent symptoms inconsistent with his separation examination denial of complaints. Vague statements about missile silos and water quality were deemed insufficient to establish toxic exposure. The Board concluded that the evidence persuasively weighed against service connection, making the benefit of the doubt doctrine inapplicable. Service connection for the heart disability was denied.

Rationale

Service treatment records negative for heart symptoms; Veteran denied cardiac complaints at separation; No evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040876
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 240918-473775
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a heart disability is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's heart disability was not incurred in and is not related to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for a heart disability are not 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 served on active duty from October 1971 to October 1975.

This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 28, 2024, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) rating decision.  In that decision, the RO denied entitlement to service connection for heart problems.

On September 18, 2024, VA received the Veteran's VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement (NOD)).  The Veteran selected the Hearing docket.

Therefore, the Board may consider the evidence of record at the time of the RO decision on appeal, additional evidence submitted on the date of the Board hearing (including testimony), and additional evidence submitted within 90 days of the hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302.

On January 21, 2026, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Law Judge (VLJ).  A transcript of that testimony is of record.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider regarding claim(s) that have been denied by this decision in whole or in part, he 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.

Service Connection

Entitlement to service connection for a heart disability.

During the January 2026 Board hearing, the Veteran contended that his heart disability had onset during service.  In this regard, he recalled experiencing shortness of breath shortly before leaving service and continued to have the same symptoms after separation.  He was later diagnosed with an irregular heartbeat and had a pacemaker implanted.  See Tr. at 3.

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

The Veteran has not undergone a VA examination for his heart disability.  VA must provide an examination when there is: (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).

At the outset, VA treatment records, such as a February 3, 2023, VA attending note, indicate that the Veteran has heart-related diagnoses including a heart murmur, a history of brachycardia, and a cardiac pacemaker in situ.

However, the evidence persuas
 of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).

At the outset, VA treatment records, such as a February 3, 2023, VA attending note, indicate that the Veteran has heart-related diagnoses including a heart murmur, a history of brachycardia, and a cardiac pacemaker in situ.

However, the evidence persuasively weighs against the finding that the Veteran's heart disability was incurred in or is related to service.

Prior to the March 28, 2024, rating decision, neither the Veteran nor his representative had offered any argument as to why the Veteran's heart disability may be related to service.

Service treatment records (STRs) are entirely negative for heart-related symptoms.  An April 24, 1975, separation examination noted that the heart was normal.  In an accompanying report of medical history from the same day, the Veteran denied shortness of breath, pain or pressure in chest, palpitation or pounding heart, and heart trouble.

Here, prior to the March 28, 2024, rating decision, there was no evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease related to the heart occurred in service of any indication that the heart disability, to include peristent or recurrent heart symptoms, may be associated with service.  As such, there was no basis for the RO to provide a VA examination for the heart disability.  38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4)(i); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 79.

It is acknowledged that, during the January 2026 Board hearing, the Veteran reported experiencing various cardiac symptoms from shortly before separation continuing to the present.  However, the Board is unable to find a pre-decisional duty-to-assist error or any other error that would warrant remand under the regulations.  38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a).  Furthermore, it is not clear why the Veteran waited until his hearing to provide these assertions.  He appointed his current attorney POA in May 2023, and the claim of service connection for a heart disability was filed nearly 10 months later, without any assertion of onset or continuity of symptoms reported.  As noted above, neither the Veteran nor his representative provided any assertions as to why they believed service connection for a heart disability was warranted prior to the March 28, 2024 rating decision on appeal. 

To the extent that the Veteran believes that his current heart diagnoses are related to service, his opinion is not competent in this regard.  Furthermore, to the extent that the Veteran reported persistent heart problems since service, it should again be noted that he denied experiencing shortness of breath, pain or pressure in chest, palpitation or pounding heart, and heart trouble at the time of separation from service, despite reporting multiple other medical concerns.

Finally, to the extent that the Veteran reported during the January 2026 Board hearing that he served at an Air Force Base hosting an underground missile silo and that the water at a nearby Navy base tasted "funny," these statements are too vague to establish that the Veteran meant to contend that his heart disability is related to in-service toxic exposures.  See Tr. at 7.  As noted above, these statements do not indicate a pre-decisional duty to assist error or any other error requiring remand, and such evidence or argument was not before the AOJ at the time of the rating decision on appeal.  

Given the above, the evidence persuasively weighs against the finding that the Veteran's heart disability was incurred in or is related to service.  Accordingly, service connection is not warranted, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

 

 

L. B. CRYAN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	D. Small, Attorney Advisor

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.