Citation Nr: 18161151 Decision Date: 12/28/18 Archive Date: 12/28/18 DOCKET NO. 17-04 111 DATE: December 28, 2018 ORDER Service connection for depression is denied. FINDING OF FACT At no time during the current appeal period has the Veteran been diagnosed with depression. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for depression are not met. 38 U.S.C.§§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R.§§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Service Connection The Veteran had active service from September 1969 to February 1970. He believes he has depression as a result of his military service. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C.§ 1110; 38 C.F.R.§ 3.303. 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 (nexus). Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be established with certain chronic diseases based upon a legal presumption by showing that the disease manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more within one year from the date of separation from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). The Veteran asserts that, despite having had physical problems, including severe vision problem, prior to service (caused by a major head injury in 1965), he was drafted into service. He performed poorly during boot camp training due to his physical disabilities, which caused him mental strain, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, and depression. According to service treatment records (STRs), a February 1970 physical examination diagnosed the Veteran with right homonymous hemianopsia (loss of right sight of vision) and post-operative status epidural hematoma (blood in the skull) that was neither incurred in nor aggravated by the period of service. The Medical Review Board determined that the Veteran was unfit for the duty, and he was discharged shortly afterwards. STRs do not show any complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of, a psychiatric disorder. The VA treatment records show that, from 2001 to 2016, the Veteran was given depression and/or PTSD screening almost every year. Significantly, the results were consistently negative, except for two occasions in December 2006 and June 2007, when the depression screening was positive. In August 2006 and December 2006, he reported distress from separation from his wife and work-related stress. In June 2007, he declined further assessment for depression, and the doctor indicated that he was only situationally depressed at that time. Significantly, at no time during the appeal period has the Veteran been diagnosed with depression or any other type of mental disorder. Although the depression screening in December 2006 and June 2007 suggests possible depression, the doctor indicated that the depression was only situational, and subsequent screenings were consistently negative. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Furthermore, even if it were argued that the Veteran had depression, the medical evidence does not associate the claimed psychiatric symptomatology with the Veteran’s military service. The record does not show any complaints of, treatment for, or a diagnosis of, any psychiatric disorders during or within one year after service. The positive depression screening results were dated in 2006 and 2007 (over 26 years of separation from service—and prior to the current appeal) and seem to be associated with the Veteran’s family and work-related stress. While the Veteran contends that he has depression due to his military service, his lay opinion does not constitute competent medical evidence because the diagnosis and etiology of depression is not the type of issue that is readily amenable to a lay person. Further, there is no evidence showing that the Veteran has the requisite medical training or expertise to reach such conclusion. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In sum, the evidence does not support a finding of a current disability of depression at any time during the appeal period. Service connection for depression is thus not warranted. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Q. Wang, Associate Counsel