Citation Nr: 18161200 Decision Date: 12/31/18 Archive Date: 12/28/18 DOCKET NO. 16-37 818 DATE: December 31, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a schizoaffective disorder with a bipolar disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT Probative evidence of record indicates that the Veteran’s schizoaffective disorder with a bipolar disorder was caused by his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a schizoaffective disorder with a bipolar disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from January 1983 to January 1988. The current matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2016 rating decision by the RO. The Board has recharacterized the previously separate issues of entitlement to service connection for a bipolar disorder and for a schizoaffective disorder as one claim for service connection for schizoaffective disorder with a bipolar disorder. The basis of this recharacterization is the similarity of symptoms of each of these psychiatric disorders. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability arising from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999), citing Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Lay assertions may serve to support a claim for service connection by establishing the occurrence of observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (addressing lay evidence as potentially competent to support presence of disability even where not corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence). Entitlement to service connection for a schizoaffective disorder with a bipolar disorder The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for a schizoaffective disorder with a bipolar disorder. The Veteran claims that he had a breakdown during service due to the stress of boot camp and that such episode led to his development of schizoaffective and bipolar disorders. Initially, the Board finds that the Veteran has diagnoses of both schizoaffective and bipolar disorders. See October 2012 Honolulu VAMC Treatment Record. Therefore, the first element of Shedden is met. With regard to element two of Shedden (an in service disease or injury), the Board finds that the Veteran’s service treatment records are silent as to any mental health or psychiatric treatment. However, the Board takes note of the Veteran’s reports that he did not seek emotional or psychological treatment during service and did his best to remain functionality while on active duty. The Board does note that the Veteran has contended that he continued mental health treatment post discharge and that his medical records reflect treatment for psychiatric disorders back to 1998. Thus, the Board finds the Veteran’s descriptions of his circumstances of psychiatric stress during service to be credible, and sufficient to establish in service disease or injury. See Bennett v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 178 (1997) (the Board may rely upon lay testimony as to observable facts). The remaining issue is, therefore, nexus. The Veteran submitted a private opinion in August 2016, by C.K., a licensed professional counselor. After reviewing the Veteran’s pertinent medical history, C.K. concluded that the Veteran’s service—and specifically his in-service breakdown and his stress during service—was more likely than not related to his current diagnoses of schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder. Indeed, C.K. specifically stated that the Veteran’s “currently diagnosed 1) schizoaffective disorder and 2) bipolar disorder more likely than not had their origins in, and are related to, his active military service.” In support of his opinion, C.K. noted that the Veteran had exhibited consistent mental health issues after his discharge from service and is currently being actively treated for such mental health disorders at VA. Based on this evidentiary posture, the Board concludes that service connection for a schizoaffective disorder and a bipolar disorder is warranted. As noted above, the Board found a current disability and an in-service event. Furthermore, the August 2016 private opinion provides a positive nexus relating these disorders to service. C.K. provided a competent nexus opinion of these diagnosed disorders and the Veteran’s military service based on an accurate description of the relevant facts of this case. Significantly, this medical opinion has not been competently and credibly refuted. Thus, the Board assigns C.K.’s opinion much probative value. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302-04 (2008) (noting that the central issue in assigning probative value is whether the examiner was informed of the relevant facts in rendering a medical opinion). Based on the evidence and affording the Veteran all benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that the Veteran’s schizoaffective and bipolar disorder are related to his service. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Kamal, Associate Counsel