Citation Nr: 21004418 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-44 378 DATE: January 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include anxiety and depression is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s psychiatric disability had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for psychiatric disability 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 Navy from June 1970 to May 1972. In October 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, who granted the Veteran’s motion to keep the record open for a period of 60 days, during which the Veteran indicated he would submit additional evidence in support of his appeal. The Veteran has done so, and this evidence will be considered by the Board in the adjudication of this claim. The Veteran’s claim of acquired mental disorders has been recharacterized to include all psychiatric disorders reasonably raised by the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Psychiatric disability The Veteran seeks service connection for his psychiatric condition. He reported at his October 2020 BVA hearing that his psychiatric disability warrants service connection since the condition began in service and has continued ever since. See BVA hearing transcript (October 2020). In addition, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STR) show that he suffered from anxiety in service. See STR (May 1972). Further, the Veteran has been diagnosed by VA doctors with depression and anxiety. See VA medical treatment record (December 2011, February 2012 and July 2013). The Veteran is diagnosed with adjustment disorder, depression and anxiety. Id and see also VA medical examination (August 2012). Thus, the Veteran has a current condition, and establishes the first element for service connection. Additionally, the Veteran’s STR shows that he suffered from anxiety in service, thus confirming his reports. See STR (May 1972). The Board finds that the medical and lay evidence linking the Veteran's psychiatric disability to service is probative, competent and credible. The Veteran’s medical records show complaints of anxiety in service and thereafter. The Veteran provided sworn testimony detailing his symptoms in service and treatments thereafter. Additionally, his cousin provided a statement noting that before service the Veteran did not had any psychiatric problems but after service the Veteran changed and became isolated. See buddy statement, C.C. (December 2020). In-service and post-service records show that the Veteran has various outpatient treatment records of his psychiatric disability. Indeed, the Veteran’s STR shows that he suffered from anxiety in service. Further, the Board also finds that the competent and credible medical and lay evidence, including the Veteran’s sworn testimony and buddy statements, shows that his psychiatric problems began during service and have been recurrent since that time. Id and see also BVA hearing transcript (October 2020). The Veteran is competent to report his psychiatric symptoms that began in service and the Board finds the Veteran’s and buddy statements credible. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a)(2); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005); Layno. 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. In light of the competent lay and medical evidence linking the Veteran’s psychiatric disability to service, and resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran's psychiatric disability is warranted because his psychiatric disability had its onset during his period of military service. As such, service connection for psychiatric disability 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.