Citation Nr: 18147359 Decision Date: 11/06/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 15-22 332 DATE: November 6, 2018 ORDER Service connection for acquired psychiatric disorders, diagnosed as depression, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has current diagnoses of depression, GAD, and PTSD; at her October 2018 Board hearing, she provided competent and credible testimony that she was sexually assaulted during service and that her mental health symptoms including depression and anxiety relate to that event. The Veteran’s caseworker also submitted a letter and testified that, in her professional opinion and based on her close familiarity with the Veteran; her symptoms; and her medical and military history, it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current acquired psychiatric disorders were caused by the in-service assault. In addition, the Veteran’s current therapist provided an October 2018 letter noting the Veteran’s psychiatric diagnoses as depression, GAD, and PTSD, and opining that the Veteran’s in-service sexual assault caused PTSD, and also led to the development of persistent depression and anxiety. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for acquired psychiatric disorders diagnosed as depression, GAD, and PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1993 to March 1994. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2014 rating decision. In October 2018, the Veteran and her caseworker testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge of the Board. In an unappealed December 1994 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a personality disorder. The Board notes that the rating decision listed the issue as “service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder,” and referenced adjustment disorder with depressed mood (which service treatment records listed as “resolved”), in addition to personality disorder; however, the clear basis for the denial of service connection was that personality disorders are considered congenital and, therefore, are not considered disabilities for VA compensation purposes. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.127. In November 2013, the Veteran filed a claim for depression and anxiety. She also submitted new medical records showing diagnoses of depression, GAD, and PTSD. In the July 2014 rating decision, the RO found that new and material evidence had been received, and reopened and denied the Veteran’s claim due to no nexus (causal linkage) between the claimed psychiatric diagnoses and the Veteran’s naval service. The Board finds that the Veteran’s original personality disorder diagnosis was a proper diagnosis because the Veteran’s mental health provider made this diagnosis after evaluating and treating the Veteran for several months. The Board similarly finds that the Veteran’s current diagnoses of depression, GAD, and PTSD, are proper diagnoses because they were provided by her treating medical team based on the team’s knowledge of the Veteran’s military and medical history and current symptoms. The Board also notes that medical evidence showing diagnoses of depression, GAD, PTSD was not of record at the time of the November 1994 denial. Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also Ephraim v. Brown, 82 F.3d 399, 402 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a newly diagnosed psychiatric disorder (e.g., depression, GAD, PTSD, social phobia, panic disorder), even if medically related to a previously diagnosed disorder, is not the same for jurisdictional purposes when it has not previously been considered). See also Velez v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 199, 204 (2009) (when determining whether a new and material evidence analysis is required, the focus of VA’s analysis must be on whether the evidence presented truly amounts to a new claim “based upon distinctly diagnosed diseases or injuries,” or whether it is evidence tending to substantiate an element of the previously adjudicated matter). [CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE] Thus, the Board find that the Veteran’s claim for service connection for acquired psychiatric disorders including depression, anxiety, and PTSD was not previously adjudicated by the RO; thus, it constitutes a new and distinct claim and does not require new and material evidence. Therefore, the Board’s review is de novo. Service connection for acquired psychiatric disorders diagnosed as depression, GAD, and PTSD For the reasons outlined above, service connection is warranted. VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Robinson, Associate Counsel