Citation Nr: 21002310 Decision Date: 01/13/21 Archive Date: 01/13/21 DOCKET NO. 17-36 339 DATE: January 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder and other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The most probative evidence demonstrates that the Veteran’s major depressive disorder and other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder are related to his service in the Republic of Vietnam. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder and other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder 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 from November 1967 to December 1969, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2013 decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs regional office. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in September 2020. The Veteran contends that he suffers from an acquired psychiatric disorder as a result of his military service, specifically his service in the Republic of Vietnam. He has asserted that he developed psychiatric symptoms as a result of experiencing frequent mortar fire and coping with the difficult war-time environment. While he initially claimed entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, the Board has expanded his claim to include any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). The record shows that the Veteran has current diagnoses of major depressive disorder and other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder. With regard to an in-service incident the record reflects that, while the Veteran was home on leave from Vietnam, he was treated for an inability to sleep or keep food down and was prescribed a sleep aid. Further, he overstayed this period of leave by 36 days and was punished by the military. The Board finds these in-service incidents to be indicative of possible psychiatric symptoms. See, e.g., 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service. On this question there are opinions in favor of and against the claim. The evidence against the claim includes VA opinions obtained in May 2011 and February 2017. The May 2011 examiner provided a diagnosis of major depressive disorder with alcohol dependence, but essentially stated that such disabilities were unrelated to service without providing a sufficient rationale. The February 2017 examiner diagnosed persistent depressive disorder, and noted that the Veteran did report a traumatic stressor but did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. The examiner provided a negative nexus opinion with respect to depressive disorder, but noted only that there was inadequate information to indicate that the disorder was related to service. The Board notes that while both opinions addressed other diagnoses, they were primarily focused on determining whether the Veteran met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. The evidence in favor of the claim includes a private opinion provided by Dr. D.M., a licensed psychologist, in June 2020. Following a thorough review of the record and an interview of the Veteran, Dr. D.M. opined that there is a “clear and direct relationship” between the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorders, diagnosed as major depressive disorder and other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder, and his service in Vietnam and that such service was “more than likely” the cause of such disorders. In support of his conclusion, Dr. D.M. pointed to the Veteran’s actions when he returned on leave, as well as drastic changes in behavior following service. In that regard, the Veteran reported no mental health symptoms prior to service but has experienced them ever since. Furthermore, Dr. D.M. noted that the Veteran consistently reported beginning to use drugs and alcohol in service and developed substance abuse issues which have plagued him throughout his life. Dr. D.M. also outlined his disagreement with the negative VA opinions, particularly with respect to allegations that the Veteran exaggerated his symptoms, and concluded that the Veteran instead suffers from very severe symptoms which can seem to be exaggerated upon evaluation. Upon review of the record, the Board finds Dr. D.M.’s June 2020 opinion to be the most probative. The opinion is not only fully supported by rationale, but addresses and refutes the contrary evidence. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for major depressive disorder and other specified trauma- and stressor-related disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. D. Bruce, 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.