Citation Nr: 20022444 Decision Date: 03/31/20 Archive Date: 03/31/20 DOCKET NO. 13-13 516 DATE: March 31, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, manifested during active service or is causally related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304(f) (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1984 to April 1988 in the United States Marine Corps, and from March 1995 to May 1997 in the United States Army. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2012 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In November 2017, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In a May 2018 decision, the Board reopened a previously denied claim for service connection for PTSD and denied the claim of service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD on the merits. The Veteran appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In August 2019, pursuant to a Joint Motion for Partial Remand (Joint Motion), the Court vacated the portion of the Board’s decision that denied service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include PTSD. Service Connection – Psychiatric Disability During the November 2017 Board hearing, the Veteran related his PTSD to experiences during boot camp, including when his head was shoved into the mud. Service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a), (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressors actually occurred, and (3) a link, established by medical evidence, between the current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressors. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). The Veteran’s service treatment records are unremarkable for any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses related to a psychiatric disorder. Private treatment records indicate that the Veteran was diagnosed with bipolar disorder by his family doctor in 2001. A November 2005 VA treatment record indicates that the Veteran reported that he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and noncombat-related PTSD. It was also noted that he had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder. In addition, it was noted that his PTSD symptoms were felt to be associated with alleged physical abuse during boot camp, but that there were no clear reportable incidents that he could recall to justify the diagnosis. Later VA treatment records note a medical history of depression, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. See, e.g., January 2010 VA treatment record. In August 2010 and March 2011 statements, the Veteran’s wife stated that the Veteran had symptoms of PTSD when they met eighteen years ago and that his symptoms had worsened over the years. She stated that he woke up in the middle of the night drenched in sweat and had described having nightmares related to boot camp and being held underwater. She indicated that loud noises frightened him and that he had an episode while driving where he seemed to go into a trance-like state. In an April 2011 statement, the Veteran indicated that he was “subjected to cruel and undue treatment” during boot camp. He stated that he saw a fellow recruit drowned and revived just to prove a point and that they were treated like “fighting dogs.” He stated that a drill instructor pushed his face into the mud and that he has had recurring nightmares about that incident. A March 2012 memorandum from the United States Joint Services Records Research Center indicated that there was insufficient information to corroborate the Veteran’s claimed stressors. In this case, the evidence does not indicate that a psychiatric disorder manifested during active service. The Veteran was first diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2001, several years after service. The passage of time between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is a factor that tends to weigh against a claim for service connection. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In addition, although he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depressive disorder, there is no medical evidence indicating that those disabilities are related to his active service. Regarding PTSD, in the Joint Motion the parties agreed that the Board failed to address a July 2010 VA outpatient record that noted that the Veteran reported that he was a member of the avionic division while he was in the United States Marine Corps and was part of a ready response team that went out on patrol. It was also noted that he received a diagnosis of severe stressors along with exposure to combat, and that the Board failed to address that potentially favorable evidence regarding the Veteran’s claimed stressors and claimed combat exposure. The July 2010 VA treatment record indicated that the Veteran reported that he had awakened sweating since he was in the Marines, that loud noises led to him staring into space, and that he has mistaken change on a table for shrapnel from a grenade. He stated that he had nightmares of having someone holding his head under water, and dreams of jumping out of a plane. He also stated that he used his cane like a rifle and pretended to shoot it like a rifle, but did not remember the incident after taking Valium. He reported that everything bothered him since the Persian Gulf War and that he did not like crowds or clicking noises, got angry suddenly, woke up frequently during the night, and has had poor memory. Regarding his military history, he reported that he was in the Marine Corps from 1984 to 1990 and was in the first Gulf War. He stated that he was in avionics and was also part of a ready response team and went out on patrol. He stated that he was in the National Guard and joined the Army in 1994. He stated he was in the Airborne for two years, but not involved in combat with them. The diagnoses on Axis I were PTSD by history and depression. On Axis IV it was noted that his stressors were severe, that he had chronic pain and decreased function, and that he was exposed to combat. The Board notes that the Veteran’s DD Form 214 for his first period of service indicated that he served with the United States Marine Corps from July 1984 to April 1988, during peacetime, and that he was an aircraft navigational systems technician. He did not have any foreign or sea service. His DD Form 214 for his second period of service indicated that he served with United States Army from March 1995 to May 1997, during the Persian Gulf War, as a patriot operations systems mechanic. He had no foreign or sea service. Based on a review of his DD Form 214s and military personnel records, the Board finds that the Veteran did not engage in combat and any statements suggesting that he was engaged in combat are not credible. Furthermore, as the July 2010 VA psychiatrist’s conclusion that the Veteran had severe stressors and was exposed to combat was based on inaccurate information, the Board finds that the record has no probative value. The remainder of the Veteran’s claimed stressors are not related to combat. Therefore, there must be credible supporting evidence corroborating that the in-service stressor actually occurred. In this case, the incidents described by the Veteran are not verifiable. Therefore, there is no basis for service connection for PTSD. The Board has also considered the lay evidence of record. The Veteran and his wife are competent to describe what they have personally observed or experienced; however, to the extent the Veteran has claimed combat stressors, the Board does not find such statements credible. Furthermore, the ultimate questions of diagnoses and etiology in this case extend beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship and are beyond the competence of lay witnesses. The Board finds that evidence in this case does not reach the level of equipoise. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a); Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Skoczen v. Shinseki, 564 F.3d 1319, 1323-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Accordingly, entitlement to service connection is not warranted. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Mishalanie 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.