Citation Nr: 18149147 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 15-10 496A DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER Service connection for anxiety disorder not otherwise specified and chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression are granted. Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bipolar disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s anxiety disorder not otherwise specified is associated with her service. Pursuant to the April 2011 VA examination report, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of anxiety disorder not otherwise specified; she contends that she was assaulted by a fellow servicemember in the Army which VA has conceded; and the examiner opined that it is as likely as not that her anxiety is associated with her experience in the service. The examiner’s opinion was supported by rationale, to include consideration of the Veteran’s medical and service history and her lay statements pertaining to the assault. Accordingly, service connection for anxiety disorder not otherwise specified is warranted. 2. The Veteran’s chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression is associated with her service. Pursuant to an August 2018 VA psychiatrist’s statement, the Veteran has chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression that is more likely than not related to her military experience with the aforementioned VA-conceded assault during service. The psychiatrist’s opinion was supported by rationale, to include over 10 years of treatment history with the Veteran and consideration of her medical and service history. Accordingly, service connection for chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression is warranted. 3. The preponderance of the competent medical evidence is against a finding that bipolar disorder is associated with the Veteran’s service; the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of PTSD. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for anxiety disorder not otherwise specified and chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2017). 2. The criteria for service connection for PTSD and bipolar disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304(f) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from January 1986 to July 1988. She served honorably in the United States Army. The Board thanks the Veteran for her service to our country. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In May 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD and bipolar disorder Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a) (i.e., in accordance with the DSM-5); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). For the purpose of evaluating lay evidence, to include a veteran’s statements about her health conditions, competent evidence is “limited to that which the witness has actually observed, and is within the realm of his personal knowledge.” Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-470 (1994). For example, although a lay person is competent to report observable symptomatology of an injury or illness (such as pain or the visible flatness of her feet), a lay person is “not competent to opine as to medical etiology or render medical opinions.” Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007). Pursuant to the April 2011 VA examination report, the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of PTSD. Consistently, the August 2018 VA psychiatrist’s statement does not identify PTSD among the Veteran’s current mental health diagnoses nor does the preponderance of the competent medical evidence indicate a current diagnosis of PTSD in accordance with the applicable DSM criteria; the Board finds that a positive PTSD screen is less probative than a negative opinion from a VA clinician. Accordingly, service connection for PTSD is not warranted. Although the April 2011 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with bipolar disorder, it was opined to be less likely than not associated with her service. The examiner’s opinion was supported by rationale, to include consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements regarding financial strain as well as her medical and service history. Accordingly, service connection for bipolar disorder is not warranted. However, the Board notes that in granting service connection for anxiety disorder not otherwise specified and chronic adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, the Board is recognizing the Veteran’s symptoms associated with her in-service stressors and is awarding her a grant of that psychiatric symptomatology. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Fales, Associate Counsel