Citation Nr: 0305124 Decision Date: 03/19/03 Archive Date: 04/03/03 DOCKET NO. 00-12 550 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Boston, Massachusetts THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a bipolar disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Patrick J. Costello, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran has active military service from August 1976 to March 1979. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 1999 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boston, Massachusetts. The Board sought additional evidence via internal development pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.9(a)(2) (2002), and that evidence has been included in the claims folder for review. In February 2002, the veteran presented testimony before the Board; a transcript of that hearing has been included in the claims folder for review. FINDING OF FACT The veteran now suffers from a bipolar disorder, and a preponderance of the competent evidence of record links it to service on an etiological basis. CONCLUSION OF LAW A bipolar disorder had its onset during the veteran's period of active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2002). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The veteran maintains that he now suffers from a psychiatric disability and that he began suffering from the symptoms and manifestations of his current disorder while he was in service. He maintains that he should receive VA benefits for this disability. Service connection shall be granted for disability arising from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be also 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) (2002). The veteran has been diagnosed as suffering from a bipolar disorder. After presenting testimony before the Board in February 2002, the Board concluded that additional development was required. As such, the Board contacted the veteran and the local VA Medical Center and arranged for the veteran to be seen by a psychiatrist to determine the nature and etiology of his current disorder. In February 2003, the veteran underwent a VA psychiatric examination. The examiner reported that he had reviewed the veteran's service medical records and his claims folder. Upon completion of the examination, the doctor diagnosed the veteran as suffering from a bipolar disorder with psychotic features. The examiner further wrote: . . . it is apparent that many of the signs and symptoms which are fully blown today were present in the Air Force. The veteran had high levels of obsessive/compulsive features, which is a component of bipolar disorder. The veteran was experiencing sleep difficulties, pressured speech, and inner psychic agitations and was presenting many of the signs of a cyclothymic or bipolar disorder which was not full blown at the time in the Air Force. . . . Accordingly, the veteran's early military involvement was a prelude to his severe bipolar disorder which manifested itself following his discharge from the military. . . . In this instance, the medical evidence shows that the veteran now suffers from a psychiatric disability - a bipolar disorder. A VA examiner has opined that the veteran supported many of the early signs and symptoms of this disease during his stint in the Air Force. Resolving all doubt in the veteran's favor, there is an etiological relationship between his current disorder and the veteran's military service. Though service records reflect diagnoses and impressions of anxiety (April 1977) and hysterical personality disorder (January 1979) and a bipolar disorder was first diagnosed many years after service discharge, there is no competent evidence of record to dispute the opinion that the symptoms presented in service were the early signs of bipolar disorder. For the reasons and bases provided above, the evidence in this case is at least in equipoise as to whether bipolar disorder is causally linked to service. Since doubt must be resolved in the veteran's favor, the veteran's claim is granted. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Finally, there has been a significant change in the law during the pendency of this appeal with the enactment of the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA). 38 U.S.C.A. § 5100 et seq. (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159, 3.326 (2002). The Board also recognizes that the Rule of Practice 903, found at 38 C.F.R. § 20.903 (2002), normally requires that the veteran be notified by letter of the development accomplished with respect to the claim. Without deciding whether the notice and development requirements of VCAA have been satisfied in the present case, the Board finds that no undue prejudice to the appellant is evident by a disposition by the Board herein, as the grant of his claim of service connection for bipolar disorder is a complete grant of the benefits sought on appeal. Cf. Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993); see also Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also Barrera v. Gober, 122 F.3d 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (where appealed claim for service connection is granted, further appellate-level review is terminated as the Board does not retain appellate jurisdiction over additional elements of claim: original disability rating and effective date). ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bipolar disorder is granted. ____________________________________________ THOMAS J. DANNAHER Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals IMPORTANT NOTICE: We have attached a VA Form 4597 that tells you what steps you can take if you disagree with our decision. We are in the process of updating the form to reflect changes in the law effective on December 27, 2001. See the Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-103, 115 Stat. 976 (2001). In the meanwhile, please note these important corrections to the advice in the form: ? These changes apply to the section entitled "Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims." (1) A "Notice of Disagreement filed on or after November 18, 1988" is no longer required to appeal to the Court. (2) You are no longer required to file a copy of your Notice of Appeal with VA's General Counsel. ? In the section entitled "Representation before VA," filing a "Notice of Disagreement with respect to the claim on or after November 18, 1988" is no longer a condition for an attorney-at-law or a VA accredited agent to charge you a fee for representing you.