Citation Nr: 20003535 Decision Date: 01/16/20 Archive Date: 01/15/20 DOCKET NO. 16-36 498 DATE: January 16, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record indicates that major depressive disorder had onset during active duty. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for major depressive disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310(b) (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty for training from June 1980 to November 1980 and active duty from October 1991 to July 1994. This case comes to the Board of Veteran’s Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida. The Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing in July 2019. Entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder is granted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2018). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (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 - the so-called “nexus” requirement. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2018). The Veteran stated in a June 2015 treatment record that his depression had begun with his first enlistment. In a May 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran reported that when he was being discharged the first time, his depression began because he wanted to stay on active duty. First, the Board finds that there is a current disability. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). According to VA medical records from January 2015, depression not otherwise specified was diagnosed. Accordingly, the first element of service connection is met. Second, the Board finds that there were in-service symptoms, but no diagnosis. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) were silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses of depression. The Veteran denied depression and nervousness in his service discharge examination. The Veteran has asserted that his symptoms began near the end of service. The Board finds these statements competent and credible, as the Veteran has been consistent. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005) (noting that a lay witness is competent to report to factual matters of which he or she has first-hand knowledge); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995) (noting that the credibility of a witness may be impeached by a showing of interest, bias, inconsistent statements, consistency with other evidence), aff’d, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, the second element of service connection is met. Third, the Board finds that the evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran’s major depressive disorder is related to active service. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). First, in a September 2015 private opinion, the provider reviewed service treatment records and provided a positive nexus opinion. The examiner relied on the Veteran’s history of depressive symptoms dating back to military service. Second, in an April 2016 medical opinion, the Veteran’s VA treatment provider opined that the depressive disorder was at least as likely as not caused by or the result of the Veteran’s military service and also that his condition resulted in symptoms and manifestations since his active duty. The examiner related the onset of his symptoms to his dismissal from service in his first period of service. Third, in a June 2019 report, the Veteran’s treating VA psychologist opined that the Veteran’s depression was a direct result of his service upon a review of the post-service discharge records. The VA psychologist explained that the Veteran had a history of major depressive disorder extending back to military service as evidenced by his history of counseling and pharmacology for the same. This medical opinion was additionally endorsed by a second treatment provider, the Veteran’s treating clinician, a board certified Adult Psychiatric Mental Health Nurse Practitioner. The Board finds these opinions highly probative evidence in support of the Veteran’s claim as they are provided upon review of the relevant facts (to include lay statements of symptomatology that the Board found probative) and are supported by explanation. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302-04 (2008) (noting that the central issue in determining probative value of a medical opinion is whether the examiner was informed of the relevant facts); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) (holding that a medical opinion must be supported by an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions).   Accordingly, the current diagnosis of major depressive disorder has been linked by medical evidence to his active service. Moreover, there is no etiological opinion to the contrary. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds service connection is warranted. K. MILLIKAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Law Clerk for the Board Ashley Ki 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.