Citation Nr: 20002944 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/13/20 DOCKET NO. 13-35 467 DATE: January 14, 2020 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, to include as secondary to service-connected disability, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the competent evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include depression and PTSD, that had an onset in service, or is otherwise related to service, to include as secondary to service-connected disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depression, to include as secondary to a service-disability, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from September 1973 to July 1978. In October 2019, the Veteran testified a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. At the hearing, the Veteran requested, and was granted, a 60-day abeyance period to submit additional evidence. However, that period has lapsed, and no additional evidence or argument was received. Finally, as an initial matter, the Board notes that although the Veteran’s claim was developed and adjudicated as a claim for service connection for PTSD, the record reflects diagnoses of depression and major depression. Therefore, the Veteran’s claim has been re-characterized to encompass such diagnoses. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depression. The Veteran essentially contends he has PTSD and depression related to service. He also contends that his depression is related to his back condition. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current acquired psychiatric disorder that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, to include a service-connected disability. In this regard, while the Veteran has current diagnoses of depression and major depression, which he believes are related to service, the preponderance of the competent evidence weighs against finding that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder that began during service or is otherwise related to service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service treatment records (STRs) show no report of, finding of, or treatment for, a psychiatric condition in service. VA treatment records show that in September 2009, the Veteran was seen in the hepatology clinic and it was noted that he had a history of PTSD/depression, as well as chronic low back pain, and was diagnosed recently with hepatitis C. He complained of insomnia, poor appetite continued drug use because of stress, financial concerns, anxiety about family, and depression. The impression included PTSD/anxiety, not well controlled. In November 2009, he denied a history of anxiety symptoms and PTSD symptoms. In October 2009, the Regional Office (RO) made a formal finding of insufficient stressor information, finding that the information required to corroborate the stressful events described by the Veteran was insufficient to send to U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) and/or insufficient to allow for meaningful research of Marine Corps or National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) records. In November 2013, the RO again made a formal finding of a lack of information required to corroborate stressors with a claim for service connection for PTSD. In December 2013, the Veteran submitted VA Form 21-0781 (Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD), in which he reported two stressor events in service, which he claimed occurred while on guard duty in 1975 at Fort Benning. He reported seeing a young man kill himself, and seeing a young man hang himself. The Veteran indicated that the month these incidents occurred was “unknown”, that the name of the serviceperson(s) involved was unknown, and that the unit assignment during the incident was unknown. VA treatment records show that in February 2015, the Veteran had a negative PTSD screen. In May 2015, the Veteran was seen in the mental health clinic for worsening depression. The assessment was depression and rule out PTSD due to childhood abuse from father. In March 2018, the diagnoses included major depression. In April 2018, it was noted that the Veteran had a history of heart attack that was a very traumatic experience and he felt depressed due to inactivity. It was noted that he had low back pain, and that the depression could be contributing to the pain, and that he had a recent exacerbation of his depressed mood after a heart attack. In October 2019, the Veteran testified he saw things in service that he would like to forget and indicated that while on guard duty at Fort Benning he heard a guy crying and by the time he got to him, he had pulled the trigger and killed himself. The Veteran initially testified this occurred in 1989, but then indicated it was 1979, or 1978, or 1977, and indicated it was during his last tour before he got out of service. He testified that when he got out of service, he did not go see a doctor regarding this, and tried to deal with it, but he could not sleep at night because of thinking about what happened. He testified that he started to realize this could possibly be PTSD when his wife told him he was acting up and getting angry over everything. He also testified he had not been diagnosed with PTSD, but had a feeling he had it because of a friend who acted the same way. Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In that regard, the Board finds that there is no verifiable in-service stressor on which to base a PTSD diagnosis. Since the Veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy, the claimed stressors are not related to combat, and the stressors are not related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. Therefore, his statements alone are not sufficient to establish the occurrence of a claimed stressors and his statements must be corroborated by credible supporting evidence. Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389 (1996). The only evidence of record indicating any stressors from service are the Veteran’s own statements made in the VA Form 21-0781, and at the October 2019 Board hearing. While the Veteran is competent to report what he experienced in-service, such as recounting events that he witnessed or feelings that he experienced, claimed stressors must be corroborated by evidence other than his own testimony, and he provided only vague and inconsistent, and questionably credible, accounts of his alleged stressors, without any specific identifying details upon which a search may be made. For example, the Veteran has not been able to identify the individuals involved or the unit assignment during the incident. He also has not been able to provide a narrowed, searchable timeframe displaying uncertainty as to when the claimed events occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Additionally, while the Veteran is competent to report any psychiatric symptoms, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis of psychiatric disability such as PTSD in this case, or to determine that these symptoms were manifestations of a psychiatric disability, or to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue, or to opine that a psychiatric disability is related to service-connected condition. The issue is medically complex and requires specialized medical education and the ability to interpret diagnostic medical testing. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran because the record does not show he has medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). (Continued on the next page)   The Board acknowledges the Veteran was not scheduled for a VA examination to determine whether he has a psychiatric disorder that may be related to service or service-connected disability. As noted above, there is no competent evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD, which the Veteran stated at the hearing, and there is no indication in the record, to include no competent evidence of record (other than the Veteran’s lay assertions, which have been non-specific in this regard, and to the extent he provided details regarding stressor events, VA was unable to corroborate those stressors) showing that a psychiatric disorder may be related to service or to service-connected disability. In fact, although the Veteran contends he has depression related to the back, the record shows that his depression has been attributed to his history of heart attack, a nonservice-connected disability, and that if anything, the depression was noted to be contributing to his low back pain (not that the low back pain was causing or aggravating his depression). Thus, a VA examination is neither necessary nor warranted. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Casula 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.