Citation Nr: 20072377 Decision Date: 11/10/20 Archive Date: 11/10/20 DOCKET NO. 15-44 320 DATE: November 10, 2020 ORDER Service connection for schizophrenia is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s psychiatric condition had its onset in and is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for schizophrenia have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army January 1971 to May 1972. In May 2019, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. In August 2019 this case was remanded for additional development. The Veteran’s claim of service connection for schizophrenia has been recharacterized to include all psychiatric disorders reasonably raised by the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Service Connection In general, service connection may be granted for a disability or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical and lay evidence, with due consideration to VA’s policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts in each individual case. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001). Indeed, in Jefferson v. Principi, 271 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), citing its decision in Madden, recognized that that Board had inherent fact-finding ability. Id. at 1076; see also 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a) (West 2002). Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to weigh and assess the evidence. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992). Psychiatric condition The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability to include schizophrenia. In support, he stated that his condition started in service and has been recurrent ever since. Additionally, he stated that he self-medicated his condition in service with alcohol. See BVA hearing transcripts (May 2019). Indeed, his service treatment records (STR) show disciplinary actions for the Veteran’s alcohol use. See STR (March 1972). The Veteran is currently diagnosed as having schizophrenia. See VA medical examination (August 2020). The Board finds that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disability, thus establishing the first element for service connection. Additionally, he continued his medical treatment for his psychiatric disabilities with therapy and medications. See VA medical treatment record (July 1991, November 2008 and May 2020) and see also Non-VA medical treatment records (April 1990, February 1992 and June 2012). The Board finds that the medical and lay evidence linking the Veteran's psychiatric disability to service is probative, competent and credible. The Veteran was diagnosed by a VA physician as having schizophrenia. See VA medical examination (August 2020). Moreover, the Veteran has various outpatient treatment records of his psychiatric disability, including a positive nexus opinion by his private physician that opined that his condition is related to service. See Physician letter, A.M. (February 2012). Additionally, the Veteran’s sister provided a statement that stated that he did not drink that heavily or had psychiatric problems prior to service, however, during and after service she noticed his changed behavior by heavily drinking, problems sleeping, hearing voices and seeing shadows. See Lay statement, A.J. (September 2019). Further, the Board finds credible the Veteran’s statements that he began suffering from his psychiatric disability in service and self-medicated with alcohol. Indeed, the Veteran’s STR shows that he was disciplined for his alcohol use. See STR (March 1972). The Board finds that the lay evidence is consistent with other evidence of record, both medical and lay, and further finds that it is competent and credible. Further, the September 2019 lay statement from the Veteran’s sister supports his account of his psychiatric symptoms since service. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board finds that the medical and lay evidence, shows that the Veteran's schizophrenia condition had its onset in service and have been recurrent since that time. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's psychiatric disability had its onset during his period of military service. As such, service connection is granted. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Alvarado- 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.