Citation Nr: 18158085 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 16-49 720 DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include bipolar disorder, depression, or an anxiety disorder, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that an acquired psychiatric disorder began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from October 1959 to August 1963. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2015 rating decision. The Veteran’s Former Spouse testified on the Veteran’s behalf via live video conference at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in January 2018. A transcript of that hearing is of record. This matter was previously before the Board in March 2018, when it was remanded for additional development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include bipolar disorder, depression, or an anxiety disorder The Veteran contends that he has an acquired psychiatric disability as a result of his service. In his October 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran described serving in the Republic of Vietnam and being tasked with the duties of recovering the bodies of deceased service members. He also claimed that he began suffering from his psychiatric symptoms during service and had been suffering from them continuously since service. At the January 2018 hearing, the Veteran’s Former Spouse repeated similar stories, testifying that the Veteran had discussed his duties retrieving and helping transport home the bodies of deceased service members while he was in Vietnam. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has current diagnoses of an acquired psychiatric disorder, the Veteran’s contentions about the nature of his service that he believes brought on his psychiatric condition are not credible, and the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s diagnoses of an acquired psychiatric disorder or symptoms of an acquired psychiatric disorder began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Veteran’s and his Former Spouse’s contentions about his service do not conform to the Veteran’s personnel records or the statements that he made about the nature of his service nearer to the time of his original separation from service. Importantly, the Veteran did not service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran’s service personnel records do not contain a record of him serving in the Republic of Vietnam. Similarly, available relevant records of the vessel on which he served were consulted and do not provide a record of this vessel sailing to Vietnam during the period of the Veteran’s service. See July 2015 DPRIS Response. Furthermore, the Veteran’s service personnel records include a letter he wrote to the Military Personnel Records Center in April 1968 in which he provided a very different account of his service than what he stated in his substantive appeal to the Board. In that April 1968 letter, the Veteran stated that he and his vessel were in the Taiwan Straits from November 1960 until 1963. The Veteran’s service department appears to have verified this version of events, because he was subsequently provided with a corrected DD-214 in May 1968 to provide documentation of his receipt of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal (Taiwan). The earliest evidence in the record that the Veteran specifically claimed to have ever served in Vietnam occurs at some point in 2010. Beginning with a VA treatment record in March of that year he began to report flashbacks to Vietnam. Since then, the Veteran has claimed to have served in Vietnam and to have a psychiatric condition or symptoms related to it. Given the conflicting reports that the Veteran has made about his activities and the locations of his service, the Board finds that the Veteran’s more recent statements that he served in Vietnam are not credible. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451, F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that lay evidence may be found not credible where there is evidence of “possible bias, conflicting statements, etc.”). Here, the Board finds that the letter written in 1968 is the more accurate account of the Veteran’s service because it was created closer in time to his service and he would have a better memory for the then more recent events. It also consistent with what is shown in his service personnel records. The Veteran’s more recent description of his service, on the other hand, is simply not credible. There is also no evidence in the Veteran’s service treatment records, military personnel records, or the records of the ship on which he served that indicate he had a psychiatric condition or experienced symptoms in service or was exposed to anything particularly traumatic or deeply affecting. Thus, the Board finds that there is no credible suggestion in the record of a connection between the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric condition and his service to warrant remanding this matter for a VA psychiatric evaluation, see McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006), much less to warrant a finding that the Veteran either had this condition during service or had some event, injury, illness, or experience in service to which this condition could relate. The evidence of record is also not consistent with the Veteran’s contention that he has been suffering psychiatric symptoms since his service. While the Veteran’s Former Spouse testified that the Veteran initially sought treatment for a psychiatric condition in the 1970s, a thorough records development was conducted and VA treatment records do not indicate that he actually sought treatment from VA facilities until the late 1980s. There is also no evidence of psychiatric conditions or treatment until the 2000s. In May 1999, the Veteran underwent a depression screening in preparation for another procedure, and no depression was indicated. In July 2003, the Veteran sought treatment for depression. At that time, the Veteran indicated that his depression had developed in the preceding 2-3 months. In December 2009, the Veteran indicated that he had had some untreated depression for the preceding 8 years. The Veteran’s description of the history of his condition changed, as previously noted, in approximately 2010. In March 2010, he reported flashbacks of Vietnam and in May 2010 the Veteran reported that his problems with mood first began when he returned from Vietnam. As noted above, however, it is not shown that the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam. Consequently, the Board finds that Veteran’s assertions of a longstanding psychiatric condition dating back to his service to lack credibility because they are inconsistent with the evidence and with the statements the Veteran has previously made when seeking medical treatment. Buchanan, 451, F.3d 1331, 1337. In summary, the Board finds that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to any disease, injury, or incident during service. Consequently, service connection for such disorder is not warranted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, that doctrine is not applicable in this appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Steven H. Johnston, Associate Counsel