Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied.

Citation Nr: A26069952 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 260407-645620 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a diagnosis of hypertension at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army from June 1968 to August 1972, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran earned a Ranger Tab, among other awards and decorations. The Board acknowledges that this decision is being issued prior to the expiration of the period during which the Veteran may elect to switch dockets. See Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024). However, the present appeal has been advanced on the docket (AOD) based on Veteran's age. The Board interprets this AOD status as reflecting an intent to have this matter reviewed in an expeditious manner, which the Board finds to be an implicit waiver of his right to change Board dockets under Williams. In the April 2026 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 2026 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 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. However, because the Board is remanding the claim of service connection for erectile dysfunction, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of that claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a 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). Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The Veteran is seeking service connection for hypertension. See February 2026 VA Form 21-526EZ. For VA purposes, hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension must be confirmed by readings taken two or more times on at least three different days. The term hypertension means the diastolic blood pressure is predominantly 90 or greater, and isolated systolic hypertension means that the systolic blood pressure is predominantly 160 or greater with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101, Note 1. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of hypertension and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or proximate 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 presented for VA examination in March 2026. The examiner noted the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of hypertension. The Veteran reported that he does not have an official diagnosis of hypertension but that he has had elevated readings from time to time starting a few years ago. The Veteran reported that his treatment plan did not include taking continuous medication for hypertension or having isolated systolic hypertension. The examiner noted the following blood pressure readings on the day of the examination: 134/76, 149/76, and 147/81. The Veteran's VA treatment records note a blood pressure reading of 176/79 in November 2025. See VA Treatment Records received February 2026. The remaining blood pressure readings in the Veteran's VA and private treatment records during the pendency of the claim or proximate to the filing of the claim do not meet the definition of hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension for VA purposes. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that he has hypertension. However, there are no treatment records indicating any diagnoses of hypertension during or near to the period on appeal. The Veteran is not shown to have the education or experience necessary to provide a competent diagnosis of hypertension. Rendering a diagnosis requires medical training and requires accurately measuring and recording blood pressure readings over time in a setting that will yield medically sound results. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, because hypertension is specifically listed in the rating schedule, there must be a formal diagnosis meeting the regulatory definition of the disability in order to meet the current disability element of service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101. In this case, the Veteran's medical records reflect that he does not have a formal diagnosis of hypertension for VA purposes. Accordingly, the Veteran's treatment records, along with the March 2026 VA examination, reflect that the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of hypertension for VA purposes. In the absence of a current diagnosed disability, service connection is not warranted. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The appeal is denied. In reaching the conclusions stated above, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. As the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other, the doctrine is not for application. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction. The Veteran is seeking service connection for erectile dysfunction. See February 2026 VA Form 21-526EZ. Under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), the Board may only remand an issue for the correction of (1) duty to assist errors occurring prior to the date of the AOJ decision on appeal (i.e., pre-decisional duty to assist errors) and (2) AOJ errors in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of such error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the appellant's claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). The Board finds remand is warranted to correct the following pre-decisional duty to assist error. At the VA examination in March 2026, the Veteran reported that his condition began in approximately February 2023. The VA examiner stated that the etiology of the Veteran's erectile dysfunction was likely multifactorial, including increased age, coronary artery disease, and dyslipidemia. (Service connection for ischemic heart disease was awarded effective April 2013). In a March 2026 VA opinion, the examiner opined that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction was less likely than not proximately due to or the result of hypertension, stating that the Veteran is not currently on medication for hypertension. The examiner also stated that the Veteran has other risk factors including increased age and dyslipidemia. The Board finds the March 2026 VA opinion inadequate. The opinion does not consider whether the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected ischemic heart disease. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). Medical evidence is considered probative when it is factually accurate, fully articulated, and provides sound reasoning for the conclusion. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). Because the March 2026 VA opinion is inadequate, remand is necessary to obtain an adequate medical opinion that addresses whether the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is related to service, including his service-connected ischemic heart disease. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Obtain an opinion from an appropriate clinician regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's erectile dysfunction. An in-person examination of the Veteran should be arranged if determined necessary by the appointed examiner. Following a review of the complete claims file, including the Veteran's service treatment records, VA treatment records, private treatment records, and lay statements, the examiner is asked to opine on whether the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is at least as likely as not (i.e., likelihood approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) related directly to the Veteran's military service, caused (direct result) of his service-connected ischemic heart disease, or aggravated (worsened to any degree) by his service connected ischemic heart disease. The examiner should consider the notation in the March 2026 VA examination that the etiology of the Veteran's condition is likely multifactorial, including age, coronary artery disease, and dyslipidemia. J. Kirby Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Henderson, Catherine 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.