Citation Nr: 18136231 Decision Date: 09/19/18 Archive Date: 09/18/18 DOCKET NO. 16-06 464 DATE: September 19, 2018 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT An acquired psychiatric disorder was not shown to have been diagnosed either in service or within a year of service discharge; and the evidence fails to establish that the Veteran’s currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder is etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §1110; 38 C.F.R. §3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in active duty from April 1996 to April 2000. This matter is on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision. Service Connection 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). To establish entitlement to service connection for PTSD, the record must contain the following: (1) medical evidence diagnosing PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). In November 2014, the Veteran filed a claim seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder which he believed was due to his active service. In his Statement in Support of Claim, the Veteran indicated that he developed PTSD as a result of four separate events in service: an incident during basic training in which a drill instructor allegedly threw a rubber training M-16 rifle at him, which he worried could have left him with a head injury; an incident in which the Veteran was allegedly placed in a supply room and punched by his drill instructor, causing him to fear for his life; and allegedly being physically beaten by other recruits and assaulted by several marines in the barracks, causing facial injuries. He asserts that these incidents have caused the development of his psychiatric disorder as he now experiences fear, nervousness, and paranoia while in public places. Service treatment records are silent for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a psychiatric condition. His separation examination in March 2000 reported normal clinical findings with regard to his mental status, and the Veteran specifically denied, depression, excessive worry, trouble sleeping or nervousness on a medical history survey completed in conjunction with his separation physical. Of note, the Veteran did denote the presence of a number of problems, suggesting that he took the time to review the form, and giving weight to the fact he was not experiencing any psychiatric problems during service. Additionally, the service treatment records fail to describe any facial or bodily injuries that would be consistent with the physical assaults he alleged had occurred during service. Approximately two years after service, a March 2002 Alaska Native Medical Center note showed that the Veteran reported having difficulty with anxiety in the past and that he had an episode about a year prior, where he had sweating and numbness in his fingers and perioral area. He denied having experienced any other episode either before or since that time. The Veteran, however, was not diagnosed with an acquired psychiatric condition at that time. It was not until October 2010 when he was given a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. During the evaluation, the Veteran admitted to having excessive worries. He reported worrying about many things throughout the day and sometimes will experience panic and shortness of breath. After his initial diagnosis, he continued to be seen for anxiety. By August 2014, he reported having anxiety approximately 2 to 4 times a month, causing him to miss work. He told his physician that because of his military service, he felt he had PTSD. In March 2015, the Veteran was referred to a PTSD Symptom Management Class. However, the physician also remarked that information contained in the report was based on a self-report assessment and was not sufficient to support a diagnosis. Thus, a diagnosis was merely suggested, but not rendered. Given the Veteran’s lay statements about being hazed and physically abused in service, VA conducted research in an attempt to corroborate his stressors, but regrettably the stressors were unable to be corroborated and VA issued a formal finding of a lack of information required to corroborate stressors associated with PTSD. Based upon the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence fails to support a diagnosis of PTSD at any time during the appeal period. See Gilpin v. West, 155 F. 3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Without a diagnosis of PTSD, the Veteran fails to meet the requirements of service connection set out under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). As noted, while the Veteran has not been diagnosed with PTSD pursuant to the DSM, he has been diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, and as such, the Board will consider whether service connection can be granted for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD. Unfortunately, service connection is not warranted based on the evidence that is currently of record. Other than his own lay statements, the Veteran has not submitted any medical evidence supporting his contention that his acquire psychiatric disorder is due to or the result of his active service. As a lay person, the Veteran is competent to report what comes to him through his senses, but he lacks the medical training and expertise to provide a complex medical opinion as to the etiology of an acquired psychiatric disorder. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In Jandreau, the Federal Circuit specifically determined that a lay person is not considered competent to testify when the issue was medically complex, as with a psychiatric disorder. Therefore, while the Veteran disagrees with the conclusion that his acquired psychiatric disorder neither began during, nor was otherwise caused by, his service, he is not considered competent (meaning medical qualified) to address the etiology of his acquired psychiatric disorder. As such, his opinion is insufficient to provide the requisite nexus. While the Veteran is considered competent to report symptoms he experienced in or around his service, he has not done so, as his service treatment records were silent for psychiatric complaints. As noted, the Veteran specifically denied any psychiatric problems at his separation physical. Additionally, his current mental health treatment records have not suggested that his acquired psychiatric disability even may have begun during or been otherwise caused by his military service. An October 2010 treatment record noted that the Veteran had a busy family life, and there was no indication that the Veteran’s excessive worries is related to his military service. (Continued on the next page)   Accordingly, the criteria for service connection have not been met for an acquired psychiatric disorder and the claim is denied. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N.Yeh, Associate Counsel