Citation Nr: 21004872 Decision Date: 01/28/21 Archive Date: 01/28/21 DOCKET NO. 15-44 501 DATE: January 28, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from November 1966 to November 1970. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in June 2019. In June 2019, the Board remanded this issue for additional development, to include a VA examination. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, which he relates to incidents during service. See September 2014 NOD; see also June 2019 Hr’g Tr. Specifically, the Veteran contends that he has PTSD related to his service in Vietnam. See June 2019 Hr’g. Tr. at 3, 4. Pertinent to a claim for service connection, such a determination requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. However, when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the veteran's filing of a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of the diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). VA’s regulations in part 4 of the Code of Federal Regulations provide guidance about the interpretation of certain types of impairments in assessing disability and thus may inform whether those impairments can be compensated as a disability. See Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393 (2020). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in Martinez-Bodon held that the plain language of § 4.130 requires a DSM-5 diagnosis to compensate a psychiatric disability and that the most reasonable interpretation of § 4.125(a), when read in conjunction with § 4.130, requires the same. Id. at 401. Turning to the current claim, upon a review of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, must be denied based on the lack of a current diagnosis as the Veteran has not been diagnosed with an acquired psychiatric disorder during the appeal. In reaching this determination, the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s competent and credible report of psychiatric problems during his June 2019 testimony before the Board and the psychiatric complaints noted in his medical records. The Veteran’s June 2013 treatment note lists a past medical history of borderline depression but not a diagnosis. See June 2013 General Medicine Note. The Veteran’s treatment notes also show the Veteran experienced early morning awakening but no other PTSD features and no other depressive features. See May 2013 Mental Health Treatment Plan Note. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2013. The July 2013 VA examiner noted the Veteran did not suffer from any psychological disorder. The examiner noted that while the Veteran did endorse symptoms of nervousness and sleep problems, those symptoms did not cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social or occupational or other important areas of functioning. The examiner added, the Veteran's symptoms were not severe enough to interfere with social and occupational functioning or to require mental health treatment or continuous medication and the symptoms as described by the Veteran were comparable to everyday family and work stress and the sleep problems may be better explained by the pressure associated with the Veteran's job as a correctional officer. See July 2013 Initial PTSD DBQ. The Veteran submitted lay statements from his sister that the Veteran’s behavior changed after service. See October 2019 Buddy Statement. At the June 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran and the Veteran's representative challenged the findings of the July 2013 examination report and asserted that the Veteran continues to suffer from nightmares and anti-social behavior. Accordingly, in June 2019, the Board remanded this issue for additional development, to include a VA examination. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in January 2020. After interviewing the Veteran and conducting a psychological evaluation, the VA examiner noted the Veteran did not suffer from any psychological disorder. The examiner acknowledged the Veteran's account of attending to and treating soldiers brought in for medical attention and retrieving and delivering dead soldiers in the aftermath of their exposure to combat during service. See January 2020 Initial PTSD DBQ. The January 2020 VA examiner noted that in the course of his evaluation, the Veteran completed the Beck depression inventory and accrued the aggregate score of 14 which is in the mild range and well below the level of clinical significance. The examiner concluded that his opinion is consistent with the January 2013 VA examiner opinion, that the Veteran does not meet the criteria for any psychiatric disorder. See July 2013 Initial PTSD DBQ; see also January 2020 Initial PTSD DBQ. The examiner administered psychological testing and interviewed the Veteran in an attempt to identify a current diagnosis and/or determine if his in-service or post-service diagnoses persisted. Clinical observation and examination failed to yield evidence of a current disability. In short, the Veteran was noted to have symptoms of a psychological disorder but his symptoms do not satisfy the diagnostic criteria for a mental disorder in the view of the mental health professionals and the Board may not use its own medical judgment (When a Board inference results in a medical determination, the basis for that inference must be independent and it must be cited.” See English v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 347, 353 (2018), citing Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171, 175 (1991); Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). Thus, the probative medical evidence of record fails to demonstrate a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disability at any time during the appeal period. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms of a psychiatric disorder, he has not demonstrated the requisite medical training or experience needed to self-diagnose a psychiatric disorder, let alone opine as to the etiology of a specific disorder. Accordingly, the Veteran's opinion regarding the presence and etiology of a current psychiatric disorder carries no probative weight. In cases such as these, the Board looks to expert medical opinions to ascertain the nature and etiology a complex psychiatric disorder. In conclusion, the Board finds the January 2020 VA examiner's opinion to be the most probative evidence of record regarding the presence of a psychiatric disability. Such evidence indicates that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder at any time during the entire appeal period. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is therefore inapplicable to the instant claim, which must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jacquelynn M. Jordan, 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.