Citation Nr: 18140183 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-24 333 DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for depression and anxiety disorder is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder is most accurately described as depression and anxiety disorder, rather than PTSD. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his depression and anxiety disorder began during active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for PTSD are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). 2. The criteria for service connection for depression and anxiety disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS After the case was certified to the Board, the Veteran submitted additional evidence that had not been considered by the RO. A remand, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 is not necessary, however, as the evidence is not relevant to the service connection claim for PTSD; and the claim for service connection for depression and an anxiety disorder is granted. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) The Veteran contends that he has PTSD due to his military service. Overall, the Board finds that the record indicates that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder is more accurately described as depression and anxiety disorder, which, as noted below, is found to be related to military service. An August 2015 private treatment record notes a diagnosis of PTSD, but there were no supporting findings in the record to support this diagnosis. This record also noted that the Veteran had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The remaining medical records show findings of depression and anxiety disorder. VA treatment records show findings of PTSD in passing, but there is no comprehensive clinical evaluation demonstrating a diagnosis of PTSD. While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of PTSD, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence, which demonstrates diagnoses of depression and anxiety disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for depression and anxiety disorder The Veteran contends that he has a psychiatric disorder due to his military service. He stated that he believed that his mental health concerns started in the military and that he was emotionally abused by drill sergeants and platoon leaders yelling during training. He also noted that he was “jumped” by another soldier, who did not like his authority as a squad leader and that he had bad memories of this event. See May 2016 VA examination report. He submitted buddy statements from friends and family attesting to the Veteran’s changed behavior after his return from active duty. For instance, his brother noted that the Veteran came back very distant and was angry and crying a lot after the Army. It seemed to his brother like the Veteran had lost something, but he was not sure what. See May 2016 statement. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of depression and anxiety disorder that began during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). A July 2017 private treatment record shows the Veteran has a current diagnosis of depression that at least as likely as not began during active service. The rationale was that the Veteran’s depression had been chronic. The Veteran described post-military life marked by serial broken relationships and repeated job loss due to emotional disturbance, which began immediately after his military service. It was noted that the Veteran’s report also was corroborated by lay statements describing a difference in the Veteran’s affect after his military service. In addition, it appeared that the Veteran’s first documented note of depression or anxiety was in the military, in that his separation examination notes that he described nervous trouble and excessive worry or depression. It was noted that although the examining clinician at separation noted normal on his psychological issues, this only reflected how the clinician observed the Veteran on that day. A May 2016 VA examination report shows that the Veteran has a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, unspecified anxiety disorder, and alcohol use disorder. The examiner found that there was no clear link to his military service. However, there was no rationale provided for the opinion, which undermines the probative value of this opinion. In reviewing the medical evidence of record, reasonable doubt is resolved in the Veteran’s favor to find that a nexus exists between the Veteran’s depression and anxiety and his military service. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Sarah B. Richmond