Citation Nr: 18153897 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 10-27 461 DATE: November 28, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as bipolar disorder and depressive disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT An acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as bipolar disorder and depressive disorder, was incurred in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, diagnosed as bipolar disorder and depressive disorder, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from November 1972 to May 1982. He had additional active service from May 1982 to August 1987, which was found by a January 1989 VA administrative decision to be dishonorable, barring any VA benefits based on or arising from such period of service. The Board previously remanded this matter for additional development in December 2013 and September 2016. In an August 2017 decision, the Board denied service connection for a psychiatric disability. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In March 2018, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand and vacated the August 2017 Board decision. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder The Veteran contends that an acquired psychiatric disorder had its onset during his period of active service from November 1972 to May 1982. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). In order to establish service connection for a claimed disorder on a direct basis, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. See Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Personality disorders are not considered disabilities for purposes of service connection. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (c), 4.9, 4.127; Winn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 510, 516 (1996). The Veteran had honorable service from November 1972 to May 1982. Service treatment records reflect that the Veteran was seen in the mental health clinic for an evaluation in January 1978. The evaluation reflected that the Veteran reported that he “was not the person he used to be.” Friends reported that he stared at the wall or TV and just sat there and talked to himself. It was also reported that he had received an Article 15 for the use of marijuana and the selling of amphetamines and had a history of financial irresponsibility. The evaluation revealed no evidence of psychiatric disease that was medically disqualifying. The Veteran was returned to duty. A January 1978 entry in the service treatment record noted that the Veteran was seen to discuss the results of his mental health evaluation. He reported that he desired to work independently on increased self-control of impulsive behaviors and more appropriate expressions of his frustrations. Post-service private treatment records dated from 2008 reflect diagnoses of major depressive disorder and bipolar I disorder. A VA examination in May 2014 noted diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate. The examiner opined that the claimed condition is less likely than not due to service. The examiner opined that VBMS records did not show mental health problems from 1972 to 1982. The examiner opined that, based on that evidence, the Veteran’s mental health disorder was less likely than not related to service. In a September 2016 Board decision, the Board found that the May 2014 VA opinion was inadequate because it relied on a lack of contemporaneous evidence of psychiatric symptoms in service. The Board also found that the Veteran’s lay statement indicating psychiatric symptoms in service were supported by service treatment records, specifically the January 1978 service treatment record. The Board remanded the case to obtain an addendum opinion. In October 2016, a different psychologist provided an addendum opinion based upon a review of the claims file. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s depression was more likely related to post-military stressors. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s statements about depression symptoms in service are not credible. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s service treatment records are negative for any mental health symptoms, reporting, or diagnosis. The examiner further opined that the Veteran’s self-report and statements indicating that his psychiatric symptoms began in service failed to be credible. The examiner opined that the Veteran reported non-credible psychiatric symptoms during his examination in May 2014. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s difficulty exercising self-control is more consistent with personality disorder traits. The examiner further noted that the Veteran’s early mental health notes included a deferred diagnosis on Axis II which would have suggested the possibility of personality disorder characteristics as well. The examiner noted that the Veteran was sentenced to prison in the past, which also limited his credibility. As such, the examiner opined that major depressive disorder is not related to nor had its onset during the period of service from November 1972 to May 1982. The October 2016 addendum opinion lacks probative value because the VA examiner failed to consider the Veteran’s statements (indicating that his psychiatric symptoms began in service) as competent and credible, as directed by the September 2016 Board remand. In October 2018, a private psychologist interviewed the Veteran and completed a medical opinion. The psychologist noted that the Veteran was referred for a psychiatric evaluation in January 1978, reportedly because he started acting up. The psychologist noted that his service record noted the Veteran’s desire to address impulsivity as well as expression of frustration. Subsequently, the Veteran reported experiencing the onset of depression symptomatology in late 1980. He was honorably discharged in 1981. During his second period of service, it was noted that the Veteran’s symptoms escalated, and he began self-medicating with alcohol, leading to a discharge under less than honorable conditions. The psychologist opined that it is “at least as likely as not” that the Veteran’s psychiatric symptom presentation emerged in prodromal form during active service in 1978. The private medical opinion is based on a review of the Veteran’s claims file and interview of the Veteran. It was based on a thorough review of the Veteran’s treatment history, including his in-service psychiatric evaluation, post-service medical records, and his lay statements about his symptoms. The 2016 addendum opinion lacks probative value, as the examiner did not address the lay evidence of symptoms, which the Board previously found to be credible. The most probative evidence indicates that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder had its onset during his first period of service. Therefore, resolving all doubt in favor to the Veteran, the Board finds that an acquired psychiatric disorder was incurred in service. Although there are negative medical opinions of record, the opinions are inadequate because they did not consider credible lay evidence of the Veteran’s symptoms. Accordingly, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as bipolar disorder and depressive disorder, is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Catherine Cykowski