Citation Nr: 0812692 Decision Date: 04/16/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 03-18 261 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE 1. Entitlement to service connection for a personality disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Lawson, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1974 to July 1976. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2004 rating determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. The veteran requested a Board hearing in July 2005 but he failed to report for the hearing in September 2005. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran has a personality disorder which is not considered a disease or injury for purposes of service connection. 2. The veteran's current acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as anxiety disorder and mood disorder, was not manifest in service and is unrelated to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Service connection for a personality disorder is denied as a matter of law. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.127 (2007). 2. An acquired psychiatric disorder was not incurred or aggravated in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS VA's duties to notify and assist VA is required to notify the veteran and his or her representative, if any, of (1) the information and evidence that is necessary to substantiate the claim; (2) what evidence the veteran is responsible for providing; (3) what evidence VA will attempt to obtain; and (4) the need to submit any evidence in her or his possession that pertains to the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2007); See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). This notice must be provided prior to an initial unfavorable decision on a claim by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004). Here, the duty to notify was satisfied through February 2004 and January 2006 letters to the veteran that addressed all four notice elements. The letters informed the veteran of the evidence required to substantiate the claim and of his and VA's respective duties for obtaining evidence. The veteran was also asked to submit evidence and/or information, which would including that in his possession, to the AOJ. The veteran was notified of effective dates for ratings and degrees of disability in September 2007. The veteran did not receive all necessary notice prior to the initial adjudication. However, the lack of such a pre- decision notice is not prejudicial. Notice was provided prior to the last RO adjudication. VA also has a duty to assist the veteran in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A. In this case, VA obtained service medical records, VA medical records, private medical records, Social Security Administration records, and lay statements. There is no indication that there are any relevant records outstanding which would be supportive of the claim. A VA examination was conducted in October 2007. VA has satisfied its assistance duties. Service connection Service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2007). In order to prevail on the issue of service connection, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Personality disorders are not diseases or injuries for the purposes of service connection. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9, 4.127 (2007). However, disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon a personality disorder may be service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 4.127. Service medical records show the veteran was referred to a psychiatrist in May 1976 after having had unauthorized absence and several captain's masts. He indicated that he was totally fed up with the service and that if he did not get off the ship, he was going to start punching people out. Mental status examination revealed he was oriented times 3, had no looseness of associations or flight of ideas, and had an affect appropriate to his mood. There was no evidence of obsessions, delusions, or hallucinations, his memory was intact, and he had no evidence of suicidal ideations or severe affective disorder. The impression was passive- aggressive personality with antisocial traits. On service discharge examination in July 1976, the veteran's psychiatric evaluation was normal. Passive aggressive personality disorder was reported in August and October 2004, and in January and July 2005 VA medical records. Depression is reported in an August 2005 VA medical record. W.M. stated in June 2007 that when the veteran returned from service, he had mental problems. In 1977, the veteran "lost it" and drove a truck into a bank sign, and in 1979, he "lost it" again and tried to run over a group of people. Another time, he cursed out an instructor at a community college and was kicked out. A VA examination was conducted in October 2007. The examiner reviewed the veteran's claims folder, including the May 1976 service medical record showing symptoms and an impression of a passive-aggressive personality disorder. He conducted psychometric tests on the veteran as well, and considered their results. After doing so, the examiner indicated that the history and current findings suggested the diagnosis of anxiety disorder with secondary mood disorder and cannabis abuse. He diagnosed anxiety disorder, mood disorder, and personality disorder. The examiner indicated that the veteran's observed symptoms were unlikely a result of events he experienced during active duty. The evidence indicates that the veteran had a personality disorder in service and has one currently. However, a personality disorder is not a disease or injury for compensation purposes and in general, disability resulting from a personality disorder may not be service connected. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.127. Moreover, the preponderance of the evidence is against service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The veteran is currently diagnosed with anxiety disorder and mood disorder which are acquired psychiatric disorders. However, no competent medical evidence shows that either was manifest in service or is related to service. To the contrary, the VA examiner in October 2007 indicated that the veteran's observed symptoms were unlikely a result of events he experienced in service. Accordingly, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not warranted. There is no reason to doubt the statements from W.M. reported above. However, his statements are not proof of what psychiatric disorder was manifest in service or whether the veteran's current psychiatric disorder is related to service. Medical evidence is required to establish diagnosis and etiology. Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 495 (1992); Grottveit v. Derwinski, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993). Likewise, the veteran's July 2005 assertion that the RO was biased in making his decision and that he has been unable to keep a job because of the illness he acquired in service is not competent evidence of what disorder he had in service or whether his current disorders are related to service. Medical evidence is required. Id. The preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and there is no doubt to be resolved. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1991). ORDER Service connection for a personality disorder is denied. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. ____________________________________________ P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs