Citation Nr: 0812738 Decision Date: 04/17/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 06-10 421 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Florida Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and his mother and father ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tahirih S. Samadani, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from October 2000 to June 2004. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2005 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. The appellant presented testimony at a Travel Board hearing chaired by the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2008. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the veteran's claims folder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran was not found to have a psychiatric disorder on the examination for entrance onto active duty. 2. Schizophrenia was present during service. 3. The evidence does not clearly and unmistakably establish that the schizophrenia existed prior to service and was not aggravated by service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Schizophrenia was incurred in active duty. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1111 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the veteran has been provided all required notice, to include notice pertaining to the disability-rating and effective-date elements of his claim. In addition, the evidence currently of record is sufficient to substantiate his claim. Therefore, no further development is required under 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2007) or 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (2007). Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002). Direct service connection may not be granted without medical evidence of a current disability, medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). A veteran will be considered to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination, acceptance, and enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable (obvious or manifest) evidence demonstrates that an injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. 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.A. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996), citing Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 54. Analysis The veteran's psychiatric status was found to be normal on examination for entrance onto active duty. The service medical records show that the veteran began displaying odd behavior in March 2003. He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in September 2003 and then discharged from active service due to his mental status in June 2004. In April 2004, a Physical Evaluation Board found that the veteran's schizophrenia existed prior to service. The veteran's complete service medical records were not available for review by the Board. The Board determined that the veteran's schizophrenia was the underlining etiology of his bizarre behavior during and prior to service. The Board acknowledged that the cause of schizophrenia is not known but that "widely accepted" genetic and perinatal factors may be the cause. A VA physician, Dr. D., who treated the veteran for schizophrenia in August 2003, opined that the veteran's condition was exacerbated by his active service. He noted that the veteran's symptoms did not manifest until he was subjected to the extreme conditions of the wartime environment of Iraq. He also stated that, at the very minimum, this raises the possibility that his inability to function may be due to emotional trauma brought on by his surroundings and not simply the emergence of genetically programmed tendency towards psychosis. Dr. B., a private physician who has treated the veteran, provided an opinion that the veteran's condition did not exist prior to service. He opined that the veteran had no psychiatric history before service besides attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, cyclothymia and psychoactive substance abuse. The veteran never had a diagnosis of any psychosis or a formal thought disorder. Dr. B. noted that after enlistment, the veteran did well for years in the service until he was deployed to Kuwait. He clarified that despite the Board's finding that schizophrenia is a neurodevelopmental disorder, no competent psychiatrist refers to schizophrenia as a neurodevelopmental disorder. Dr. B. found no evidence that the veteran's "bizarre" behavior of getting into trouble as an adolescent and drug use to be due to schizophrenia. Dr. B. also opined that this connection was nothing more than speculation by the Naval Board. In view of the foregoing medical opinions supporting the proposition that the veteran's schizophrenia did not exist prior to service or was aggravated by service, the Board concludes that the evidence does not clearly and unmistakably demonstrate that the veteran's schizophrenia existed prior to service and was not aggravated by service. Accordingly, the presumption of soundness has not been rebutted, and the veteran is entitled to service connection for this disability. ORDER Service connection for schizophrenia is granted. ____________________________________________ Shane A. Durkin Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs