Citation Nr: 18151979 Decision Date: 11/20/18 Archive Date: 11/20/18 DOCKET NO. 18-27 348 DATE: November 20, 2018 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), is denied. FINDING OF FACT An acquired psychiatric disability did not have its onset during, nor was it aggravated by, any incident of the Appellant’s service in the Army National Guard of Puerto Rico (ANG). CONCLUSION OF LAW An acquired psychiatric disability was not incurred in or aggravated by the Appellant’s ANG service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Appellant served in the Army National Guard of Puerto Rico (ANG) from July 1979 to February 1988 and from April 1992 to August 2001. The Appellant has not been provided with an examination; indeed, VA does not have a duty to provide an examination in every case. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010). VA’s obligation to provide the Appellant with a medical examination or to obtain a medical opinion is not triggered unless there is an indication that the claimed disability may be associated with service. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App.79, 81 (2006). As is discussed in greater detail below, while the evidence shows that the Appellant currently has an acquired psychiatric disability, the evidence does not indicate that he experienced an in-service injury, event, or disease that might have resulted in the development of such a disability. The evidence of record is insufficient to trigger VA’s duty to provide an examination with an opinion. See Waters, 601 F.3d 1274. Without competent evidence suggesting that the Appellant experienced a relevant in-service injury, event, or disease, an examination addressing the Appellant’s acquired psychiatric disability is unwarranted. There remains no question as to the substantial completeness of the claim. For these reasons, the Board finds that VA’s duties to notify and assist have been met. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from an injury, event, or disease occurring during active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), 3.304. The term “active military, naval, or air service” includes active duty, any period of active duty training (ACDUTRA) during which the veteran was disabled or died from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, and any period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) during which the veteran was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24). In this case, the Appellant’s claim of entitlement to service connection cannot be based on any period of INACDUTRA, because he has not claimed that his acquired psychiatric disability arises from an in-service injury. As distinct from a military reservist, a member of the National Guard may be called to duty by the governor of her state. Members of the National Guard only serve the federal military when they are formally called into the military service of the United States; at all other times, National Guard members serve solely as members of the state militia under the command of a state governor. Allen v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 54, 57 (2007). Therefore, to have basic eligibility for veterans’ benefits based on a period of duty as a member of a state National Guard, a member of the National Guard must have been ordered into federal service by the President of the United States, see 10 U.S.C. § 12401, or must have performed “full time duty” under the provisions of 32 U.S.C. §§ 316, 502, 503, 504, 505. In order to establish service connection, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence, generally medical, of a nexus between the claimed in service disease or injury and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999). More specifically, service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with VA regulations; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in service stressor occurred; and (3) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The Appellant enlisted into service with the ANG in July 1979. A DD Form 220 shows that the Appellant had a period of ACDUTRA with the ANG from July 23, 1979, to October 17, 1989. The Appellant separated from the ANG in February 1988. The Appellant again enlisted into the ANG in April 1992. In a June 2001 psychiatric examination conducted in association with the Appellant’s application for SSA disability benefits, the Appellant stated that he last worked in August 2000. The Appellant attributed his psychiatric symptoms to his separation from his daughters ten years before, which have been in 1991. The clinician diagnosed the Appellant with a major depressive episode. The Appellant separated from the ANG in August 2001, at which time he was found to be medically unfit for retention as the result of depression with psychotic features. The Appellant’s service separation documents show that the Appellant had no periods of active federal service. Following the Appellant’s separation from the ANG, the Appellant filed his claim for service connection in January 2016, and the evidence shows that the Appellant has been diagnosed with a psychiatric disability since filing his claim. In March 2016, the Appellant stated that he worked a job in Aibonito, Puerto Rico, during his period of service with the ANG. The Appellant stated that “for this reason, [his] pension was deducted, and without notifying [him] or asking [him], all of his salary was deducted, leaving [him] only with $23 weekly”. This situation “made [the Appellant] sick and [his] nervous system was affected . . . it was disturbing”. The Appellant indicated that he was ultimately discharged from the ANG because of his “affected nervous system”. Turning to an analysis of these facts, the Appellant does not contend that his acquired psychiatric disability arises from a period of ACDUTRA service at all. Indeed, in medical treatment records, for example from June 2001, the Appellant attributed his psychiatric difficulties to personal struggles, rather than to any incident of ANG service. Since filing his claim for benefits, the Appellant has only broadly argued that financial difficulties associated with working a job during his period of service with the ANG led him to develop an acquired psychiatric disorder. In other words, the Appellant has not identified a relevant in-service incident that led to his development of an acquired psychiatric disability. Or, in terms of the elements required to support service connection for PTSD, the Appellant has not identified an in-service stressor. It is simply not enough that the Appellant was diagnosed with such a disability during his lengthy periods of service with the ANG; the Appellant must instead identify an incident of ACDUTRA service that led him to develop such a disability. In the absence of such a claimed incident, the Board must deny the Appellant’s claim. In sum, the weight of the evidence of record does not support a finding that the Appellant incurred an acquired psychiatric disorder as a result of his ANG service, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J.A. Flynn