Citation Nr: 20044040 Decision Date: 06/30/20 Archive Date: 06/30/20 DOCKET NO. 15-03 151 DATE: June 30, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The competent medical evidence of record supports a finding that the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder during the period on appeal is related to his service-connected non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1969 to February 1973. This matter come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of April 2014 issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2018, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of the hearing is of record. In October 2018, the issue was remanded for further development, including a VA medical examination. The Board finds that the examination is adequate for adjudication. There has been substantial compliance with the remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is granted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity for certain diseases. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), (b), 3.309(a); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331(Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). To establish service connection for the claimed disorder, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). Secondary service connection may also be established for a nonservice-connected disability, which is aggravated by a service-connected disability. In such an instance, the Veteran may be compensated for the degree of disability over and above the degree of disability existing prior to the aggravation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (b); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995). To establish entitlement to service connection on a secondary basis, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical evidence establishing a nexus between the service-connected disability and the current disability. Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). The Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331(Fed. Cir. 2006). The evaluation of evidence generally involves a three-step inquiry. First, the Board must determine whether the evidence comes from a “competent” source. The Board must then determine if the evidence is credible or worthy of belief. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 308 (2007). The third step of this inquiry requires the Board to weigh the probative value of the evidence considering the entirety of the record The standard of proof to be applied in decisions on claims for veterans’ benefits is outlined in 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012). A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When a claimant seeks benefits and the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant prevails. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim for benefits to be denied. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran’s treatment records show various diagnoses of depressive disorder, unspecified. During a VA Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), of December 2015, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with an unspecified depressive disorder, in remission. Subsequent VA treatment records, however, dated in August 2017 show current diagnoses of mood disorder and PTSD, prolonged. Treatment records in October 2017 show the Veteran, having been prescribed duloxetine for his depression. In November 2019, the Veteran was afforded a second VA PTSD DBQ. The examiner noted the Veteran’s history of depression, with documentation suggesting it was precipitated by a bone marrow transplant for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. The Veteran is service-connected for Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma as of May 2005. As the evidence of record is reflective of a finding that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his service-connected non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, the Board finds that the nexus element of a secondary service connection claim is satisfied. Wallin, 11 Vet. App. at 512. Affording the Veteran, the benefit of the doubt, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include as secondary to the service-connected non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, is, thus, granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55. D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Stevens, 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.