Citation Nr: 18161148 Decision Date: 12/28/18 Archive Date: 12/28/18 DOCKET NO. 17-05 266 DATE: December 28, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include adjustment disorder with depression, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has a current diagnosis of an adjustment disorder with depression that began in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an adjustment disorder, with depression, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1989 to May 2013. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service connection is awarded for disability that is the result of a disease or injury in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004), citing Hansen v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 110, 111 (2002); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). A Veteran bears the evidentiary burden to establish all elements of a service connection claim, including the nexus requirement. See Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (2009); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In making its ultimate determination, the Board must give a veteran the benefit of the doubt on any issue material to the claim when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. See Fagan, 573 F.3d at 1287 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b)). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). A lay witness is competent to testify as to the occurrence of an in-service injury or incident where such issue is factual in nature. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 91, 93 (1993). In some cases, lay evidence will also be competent and credible on the issues of diagnosis and etiology. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Specifically, lay evidence may be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis where (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377; see also Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Veteran contends that his claimed disorder had its onset in service. September 2015 VA treatment records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of depression, and a March 2015 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with an adjustment disorder with depressed features, specifically due to service. The Veteran’s service treatment records contain a diagnosis of Adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressed mood. See December 2001 treatment note. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for PTSD in March 2015. The examiner stated that the Veteran's PTSD symptoms were sub clinical. However, the examiner also stated that the Veteran's adjustment disorder with depression and his stress related anxiety were present during active service and presently affecting him. As such, service connection is granted for an acquired psychiatric disorder, adjustment disorder with depression. MICHAEL KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Uller, Associate Counsel