Citation Nr: 20028837 Decision Date: 04/24/20 Archive Date: 04/24/20 DOCKET NO. 15-10 336 DATE: April 24, 2020 ORDER Service connection for depression is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have depression that is related to his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for depression have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1971 to August 1995. In June 2018, the Board remanded this claim for additional development. 1. Service connection. The Veteran asserts that he has depression that should be service connected. The Veteran has conceded that he was not treated for psychiatric symptoms during service. See Veteran’s statement, received in March 2015. He has not asserted that he has had ongoing psychiatric symptoms since his service. See e.g., Veteran’s notice of disagreement, received in April 2014, appeal (VA Form 9), received in March 2015. Rather, he argues that he has depression due to seeing airplane crashes and dead bodies while aboard an aircraft carrier during the Vietnam Era. See March 2015 statement. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be granted on the basis of a post-service initial diagnosis of a disease, when “all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred during service.” See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). The Board notes that the Veteran has not asserted, and there is no evidence to show, that his depression has been caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not show any relevant complaints, findings, or diagnoses. This evidence includes several examination reports, to include a June 1995 retirement examination report, which show that his psychiatric condition was clinically evaluated as normal. Associated reports of medical history, to include a March 1995 report of medical history, all show that he indicated that he did not have a history of depression or excessive worry, or nervous trouble of any sort. As for the post-service medical evidence, the Veteran did not report any psychiatric symptoms during a December 1995 VA general medical examination. There was no relevant diagnosis. Private treatment reports from Dr. B.N., dated in 2014, note depression, with use of Lexapro. Reports, dated in 2018, note major depressive disorder (MDD). VA progress notes, dated beginning in 2014, note depression with use of Lexapro. In June 2018, the Board remanded this claim. The Board directed that the Veteran’s records from Dr. B.N. be obtained, and this was done. The Board also directed that the Veteran be afforded an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his depression. However, it appears that the Veteran failed to report for his scheduled examinations in August 2019 and October 2019. The Veteran has not provided good cause for missing the examinations or requested that new examinations be provided. VA regulations provide that when a Veteran fails to report for an examination that was ordered in conjunction with an original claim, the claim should be rated based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. However, here, the Veteran’s claim was remanded because the evidence of record failed to make it at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s current acquired psychiatric disability either began during or was otherwise caused by his military service. The examination was scheduled in an effort to assist him in developing his claim. In summary, the Veteran is not shown to have reported psychiatric symptoms during service, nor was he found to have an acquired psychiatric disorder during service. Following separation from service in August 1995, the earliest medical evidence of depression is dated in 2014, approximately 19 years after separation from service. There is no competent opinion of record in favor of the claim. Accordingly, the claim must be denied. Given the foregoing, the Board finds that the service treatment reports, and the post-service medical evidence, outweigh the Veteran's contentions to the effect that he has the claimed condition that is related to his service. With regard to the Veteran’s contentions, although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, see Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), as to the specific issue in this case, it falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although the Veteran is competent to report the presence of psychiatric symptoms, the claimed disability is not the type of condition that is readily amenable to mere lay diagnosis or probative comment regarding its etiology, as the evidence shows that specific findings are needed to properly assess and diagnose this disorder, and determine its etiology. The Board has therefore afforded more probative weight to the medical evidence, which shows that the Veteran was not treated for psychiatric symptoms during service, and that the claimed condition is first shown many years after service. The Board therefore finds that this evidence is insufficiently probative to warrant a grant of the claim. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In reaching this decision, the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt, however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the doctrine is not for application. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T.S.E., 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.