Citation Nr: 18151528 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/19/18 DOCKET NO. 13-29 318 DATE: November 20, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for drug dependency as secondary to an already service connected schizoaffective disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s drug dependency is not proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by his service-connected psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for drug dependency as secondary to the Veteran’s already service connected schizoaffective disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C.§§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.310, 4.130. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had honorable service with the United States Air Force from March 1969 to March 1973, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. On his September 2013 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested a hearing by live videoconference. He was scheduled for such a hearing in November 2014. The Veteran did not attend his hearing, nor has he presented good cause as to why such a hearing should be rescheduled. His hearing request is deemed withdrawn. The Board previously remanded this matter in July 2016 and September 2017. 1. Entitlement to service connection for drug dependency as secondary to an already service connected schizoaffective disorder Here, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for drug dependency as secondary to service-connected schizoaffective disorder. To prevail on the issue of secondary service connection, the record must show evidence of a current disability, evidence of a service-connected disability, and medical nexus evidence establishing a connection between the current disability and the service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). There is conflicting evidence as to whether the Veteran has been diagnosed as having a separate psychiatric disorder (namely drug dependency) during the course of his appeal. Though the Veteran has consistently denied using drugs since 2011, VA treatment records show diagnoses of drug dependence in records dated August 2011, July 2011, and May 2014. For the purposes of this appeal, the Board shall assume that the Veteran has such a diagnosis. As to the second prong, the Veteran is service-connected for schizoaffective disorder at a 100 percent rate since December 2009. The second requirement for secondary service connection is met. The third requirement for secondary service connection requires that there be a nexus between the Veteran’s current disability and the service connected disability, in this instance, his schizoaffective disorder. Here, assuming that the Veteran was diagnosed as suffering from drug dependency during the course of this appeal, a nexus between that disability and his current service-connected disability is not shown. In the most recent VA Examination from July 2018, the Veteran stated that his drug use resulted with socializing with drug-using peers, not as a result of his schizoaffective disorder. Based off of the Veteran’s statements and her examination of the Veteran, the examiner concluded that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s drug dependency is secondary to his service-connected schizoaffective disorder. Notably, she found that, contrary to the Veteran’s pleadings before VA, the Veteran’s use of drugs was not “a means of coping with his mental health symptoms.” She also noted that medical literature did not support “a link between his schizoaffective disorder symptoms and his substance abuse.” As to aggravation, the examiner explained that she could not offer an opinion without resorting to mere speculation. The examiner further explained this inability, noting that “most substance use disorders do not have a ‘natural progression,’” but instead are variable. She also noted that there is conflicting evidence regarding the onset and severity of the Veteran’s substance abuse. Thus, the examiner’s opinion is fully formed, setting forth the reasons that she cannot resolve this issue. Accordingly, the Board finds that any further research on this issue would be futile, resulting only in a delay to the Veteran’s claim and not to any positive benefit to him. As a result, there is no competent evidence that the Veteran’s claimed drug dependency is proximately due to or aggravated by his service-connected schizoaffective disorder. Though the Veteran certainly contends as such, determining the etiology of psychiatric disorders is complex and requires specialized medical knowledge or training. His contentions as to this issue are therefore not considered competent evidence in support of his claim. Upon careful review of the record, the Board finds that the evidence in this claim for secondary service connection for the Veteran’s drug dependency is not, at a minimum, in equipoise. 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. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). As such, entitlement to secondary service connection is not established. As a final note, however, the Board wishes to stress to the Veteran that he remains in receipt of a 100 percent rating for his schizoaffective disorder. Indeed, even if the Board were to have granted the Veteran’s claim herein, such a grant would not have resulted in any further benefit to the Veteran, as he can receive only one rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The fact that no additional benefit would have resulted from granting this claim explicitly has not influenced the Board’s decision, which is based on the evidence and facts detailed above. Instead, the Board wishes merely to assure the Veteran that his service-connected disability remains in place and that its connection to his active service is noted. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. N. P. Jochem, Associate Counsel