Citation Nr: 19159698 Decision Date: 08/01/19 Archive Date: 08/01/19 DOCKET NO. 1204996A DATE: August 1, 2019 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, his OCD had its onset in and/or is otherwise related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for OCD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1991 to January 1995. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision by a Regional office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In March 2018, the Board denied the above claim. The Veteran appealed that decision. In January 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC/Court) issued an order granting a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (JMPR) as discussed below. This matter has returned to the Board for readjudication. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting in a disease or injury that is incurred in or aggravated by active duty military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(2017). Service connection may be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2018). To establish service connection for a claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and current disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 3.303 (2018); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67. 1. Entitlement to service connection for OCD. The Veteran seeks service connection for OCD. In brief, the Board’s 2018 denial was partially predicated on the findings of a June 2017 VA examiner. This 2017 examiner provided two alternative theories as to the etiology of the Veteran’s OCD. The examiner first opined that the condition was at least as likely as not related to service. However, the examiner caveated that this opinion was based on the Veteran’s reports, alone, as the record lacked any additional evidence that the condition began in-service. The examiner then indicated that if the Veteran’s reports were insufficient to support service connection then his condition was less likely than not related to service. Per the JMPR, the Board improperly dismissed the relevance of positive evidence without providing adequate reasons and bases. The JMPR found the Board’s analysis inadequate because it failed to directly address whether the Veteran was considered a credible historian such that his statements could support the opinion or continuity of symptomatology. The Board also failed to consider the combined significance of the positive findings of the other VA examiners of record. Following consideration of the JMPR, a newly submitted June 2019 Representative Brief, and affording the Veteran the full benefit of the doubt entitlement to service connection is warranted. The Veteran has been diagnosed as having OCD. Such was established by VA examination in August 2013. As to in-service disability, the record is negative for diagnosed OCD during service. Nevertheless, as outlined by the June 2019 Representative Brief and reflected in the record, the Veteran has consistently reported engaging in uncontrolled behavior. He reports keeping extremely orderly environments, engaging in excessive cleanliness, and habitually double checking completed tasks. The Board finds these statements credible. Additionally, as stated, the 2017 VA examiner considered these actions to be symptoms of OCD. A January 2015 VA examiner similarly determined the Veteran’s reports of “rigorous organization of things” to be symptoms of OCD. There are no records to contradict the Veteran’s reports of OCD in-service. The Board also finds it reasonable that his detail-oriented actions would not have been readily detected as symptoms given the stringent nature of military service. As to post-service, treatment medical records first note an “OCD behavior” diagnosis in November 2010. See Beeville Family Practice Records. The Veteran concedes not immediately seeking treatment post-service. See June 2019 Representative Brief. In so doing, he explains being initially unaware that his actions were inappropriate as they helped him succeed in-service. Nevertheless, over-time, post-service, he became aware that his actions were unacceptable and needed to be treated as they caused discord and at times fear within his family. The Board finds the Veteran’s explanation for lack of treatment or report post-service reasonable and credible. Furthermore, his statements as to being unaware of his condition are supported by an August 2013 VA examiner. The 2013 examiner specifically found that the Veteran had poor insight into the dysfunctional nature of his obsessive and compulsive behavior. Rather than an impairment, the Veteran considered his actions reasonable and functional despite them negatively impacting his personal life. Given his lack of understanding, it is logical that the Veteran would not have known to report impairment even when questioned by physicians as to his health. Finally, the Veteran’s overall credibility is supported by the VA examiners of record. He has undergone three VA examinations conducted by separate examiners. These examination reports are negative for findings that the Veteran was malingering or an unreliable historian as to his reports of OCD symptomatology. In sum, the Veteran’s diagnosed OCD has been related by a VA examiner to be incurred in service. This opinion was predicated on complete medical examination, review of the record, and consideration of the Veteran’s lay statements. The credibility of the Veteran’s statements of continuity of symptomatology are supported by VA examination findings and the record. Although there is a negative opinion of record, the evidence is at least in equipoise. Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt entitlement to service connection for OCD is granted. MICHAEL A. HERMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. L. Burroughs, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.