Citation Nr: 21062690 Decision Date: 10/08/21 Archive Date: 10/08/21 DOCKET NO. 19-08 931A DATE: October 8, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified, is granted. Service connection for a right knee disability is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a left hip disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for leukemia is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified, had its onset in service. 2. The Veteran's right knee disability had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24),1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. 2. The criteria for service connection a right knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24),1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137, 1154(a), 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from October 1959 to October 1961. He also had additional service in the Naval Reserve. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2018 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), that denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). As there are multiple other psychiatric diagnoses of record, the Board finds that it is more appropriate to characterize the claim broadly as one of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). By this decision, the RO also denied service connection for a right knee disability; a right hip disability; a left hip disability; leukemia; sleep apnea; and for erectile dysfunction. In July 2021, the Veteran appeared at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. 1. Psychiatric Disorder, to include PTSD Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). The term "active military, naval, or air service" includes active duty, any period of active duty for training during which the individual was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty, and any period of inactive duty training during which the individual was disabled or died from an injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24). Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical and lay evidence, with due consideration to VA's policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts in each individual case. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Secondary service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by an established service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (2015); see also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) (i.e., under the criteria of DSM-IV); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. If the evidence establishes that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Further, 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) provides that if a stressor claimed by a Veteran is related to the Veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of [PTSD] and that the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran's service, the Veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that "[w]hether lay evidence is competent and sufficient in a particular case is a factual issue to be addressed by the Board"). The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001). Indeed, in Jefferson v. Principi, 271 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), citing its decision in Madden, recognized that that Board had inherent fact-finding ability. Id. at 1076; see also 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (West 2002). Moreover, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to weigh and assess the evidence. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992). As a finder of fact, when considering whether lay evidence is satisfactory, the Board may also properly consider internal inconsistency of the statements, facial plausibility, consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the Veteran, and the Veteran's demeanor when testifying at a hearing. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). In determining the probative value to be assigned to a medical opinion, the Board must consider three factors. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The initial inquiry in determining probative value is to assess whether a medical expert was fully informed of the pertinent factual premises (i.e., medical history) of the case. A review of the claims file is not required, since a medical professional can also become aware of the relevant medical history by having treated a Veteran for a long period of time or through a factually accurate medical history reported by a Veteran. See Id. at 303-04. The second inquiry involves consideration of whether the medical expert provided a fully articulated opinion. See Id. A medical opinion that is equivocal in nature or expressed in speculative language does not provide the degree of certainty required for medical nexus evidence. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The third and final factor in determining the probative value of an opinion involves consideration of whether the opinion is supported by a reasoned analysis. The most probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning. Therefore, a medical opinion containing only data and conclusions is not entitled to any weight. In fact, a review of the claims file does not substitute for a lack of a reasoned analysis. See Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 304; see also Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007) ("[A] medical opinion... must support its conclusion with an analysis that the Board can consider and weigh against contrary opinions."). The Veteran contends that he has as psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, that is related to service. He specifically maintains that he suffered mental abuse from superiors during service. The Veteran states that he went to the chaplain a number of times because he couldn't handle the verbal abuse. He indicates that when he was discharge from the service, he was in such a deep depression that he needed to see a psychiatrist, and that he wound up getting shock treatments. The Veteran reports that he believes he received the psychiatric treatment probably in 1962. The Veteran essentially asserts that his psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, began during his period of service, and that it has continued since that time. The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from October 1959 to October 1961. He also had additional service in the Naval Reserve. The Veteran's service treatment records do not specifically show treatment for any psychiatric problems. Post-service VA treatment records show treatment for variously diagnosed psychiatric disorders, including an adjustment disorder, with mixed anxiety and a depressed mood; a generalized anxiety disorder; an unspecified anxiety disorder; recurrent major depression; a major depressive disorder; an anxiety disorder, unspecified; and a major depressive disorder, unspecified. A June 2018 VA psychiatry note indicates that the Veteran was seen with a chief complaint of feeling anxious. The Veteran reported that he had a long history of depression, and that in the 1960s, he received electroconvulsive therapy, which caused him to have memory issues. He stated that he did not have a great reaction from medications previously, and that he usually did not like antidepressants, but that he would like to restart on such medication. The Veteran maintained that he felt more stressed recently due to a hip replacement, which was painful and had to be redone. He also reported dental procedures that needed to be completed. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's remote history was reviewed, and that he was noted to have a history of a major depressive disorder and an unspecified anxiety disorder. The diagnoses were a major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe, without psychotic features, and an unspecified anxiety disorder. A June 2018 VA psychology note, on that same day, reflects that the Veteran presented with anxiety and depression, primarily related to an upcoming procedure and concerns related to his ability to recover. The Veteran reported that both anxiety and depression were familiar to him, with his depressive symptoms varying over the years. He maintained that he was consistently worried, tense, and restless, dating back to being in the military. As to a relevant military or trauma history, the examiner stated that the Veteran endorsed occasional intrusive memories related to verbal abuse/threats while in the military. It was noted that there were no recurring intrusions and/or avoidance symptoms. The diagnostic impression was a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified. An August 2021 lay statement from the Veteran's brother indicates that the Veteran was happy and full of energy when he entered the Navy. The Veteran's brother stated that when the Veteran completed his two years of active service, his personality totally changed. The Veteran's brother reported that the Veteran had become moody and quiet, and that he no longer wanted to socialize and do the things he had previously done. The Veteran's brother maintained that the Veteran often complained of pain in his back, right knee, and hips, which seemed to cause him to limp. He stated that the Veteran's depression seemed to get worse, which eventually led him to seek psychiatric help and undergo shock treatments. The Board observes that the Veteran's service treatment records do not specifically show treatment for psychiatric problems. The Board notes, however, that post-service VA treatment records show that the Veteran was treated for variously diagnosed psychiatric disorders, including an adjustment disorder, with mixed anxiety and a depressed mood; a generalized anxiety disorder; an unspecified anxiety disorder; recurrent major depression; a major depressive disorder; an anxiety disorder, unspecified; and a major depressive disorder, unspecified. The Veteran has reported that he suffered mental abuse from superiors during service, and that he went to the chaplain a number of times because he couldn't handle the verbal abuse. The Veteran has also indicated that when he was discharged from the service, he was in such a deep depression that he needed to see a psychiatrist, and that he wound up getting shock treatments. The Board further notes that the Veteran's brother reported that when the Veteran completed his two years of active service in the Navy, his personality totally changed. The Veteran's brother reported that the Veteran had become moody and quiet, and that he no longer wanted to socialize and do the things he had previously done. The Veteran's brother also stated that the Veteran's depression seemed to get worse, which eventually led him to seek psychiatric help and undergo shock treatments. The Board also notes that a June 2018 VA psychiatry note indicates that that the Veteran was seen with a chief complaint of feeling anxious. The Veteran reported that he had a long history of depression, and that in the 1960s, he received electroconvulsive therapy, which caused him to have memory issues. The diagnoses, at that time, were a major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe, without psychotic features, and an unspecified anxiety disorder. The Board observes that another VA psychology note, on that same day, indicates that the Veteran maintained that he was consistently worried, tense, and restless, dating back to being in the military. As to a relevant military or trauma history, the examiner stated that the Veteran endorsed occasional intrusive memories related to verbal abuse/threats while in the military. The diagnoses, at that time, were a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified. The Board observes that the Veteran is currently diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified. The Board finds the Veteran's reports of psychiatric problems since his period of service to be credible. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007) (holding that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when a lay person is competent to identify the medical condition, or reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or the lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional). The Board also finds that the reports by the Veteran's brother that the Veteran's personality totally changed when he completed his two years of active service, and that he had become moody and quiet, and no longer wanted to socialize, to be credible. Resolving any doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise regarding whether the current psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified, commenced during his period of service. In light of the evidence of record, the Board cannot conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting service connection for a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified. Accordingly, service connection for a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified, is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). As the Board has granted service connection for a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified, on a direct basis, it need not address any other theories of service connection. 2. Right Knee Disability The Veteran contends that he has a right knee disability that is related to service. He specifically maintains that he injured his right knee during service when he was carrying three cases of food on his back, and he slipped and fell backwards while climbing a ladder. The Veterans states that he was helped by other sailors to get to sick bay where he received treatment, including on his right knee, back, and hip. He indicates that he continued to get treatment on his right knee during service. The Veteran also reports that he received treatment for his right knee following his discharge from service, and that he had to wear a right knee brace. The Veteran essentially asserts that he suffered right knee problems during service and since service. The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from October 1959 to October 1961. He also had additional service in the Naval Reserve. The Veteran's service treatment records indicate that he was treated for right knee problems on multiple occasions. An October 1960 treatment entry notes that the Veteran was seen for pain in the right heel that radiated down from the knee. The Veteran stated that he injured his knee about four weeks earlier, and that it seemed to be worse with cold weather and walking. The examiner reported that the dorsalis pedis pulsation seemed weaker on the right. The assessment was somewhat illegible, but appeared to refer to vascular refinery. A subsequent October 1960 entry notes that the Veteran was seen for pain in the right leg, with a history of pain from to the knee and heel. A diagnosis was not provided at that time. A November 1960 entry notes that the Veteran was seen for pain in the right leg. A diagnosis was not provided at that time. A December 1969 consultation sheet notes that the Veteran was struck on the lateral surface of the leg just below the knee some months ago. It was noted that since that time, the Veteran complained constantly of numbness or tiredness in the lateral leg below the knee and into the heel. The initial examiner also stated that the Veteran had been walking on his toes to avoid weight on his heal, but that weight bearing was not painful. The provisional diagnosis was a possible injury to the peroneal nerve. The consultation examiner stated that the Veteran had no sensory or reflex issues or changes in motor activity. It was noted that the Veteran had possible redness, but that it was primarily due to heal discomfort and muscle soreness near the knee. The consultation examiner maintained that the orthopedic examination of the Veteran's right leg and foot was within normal limits, and that the Veteran was returned to full duty. A May 1961 entry notes that at the Veteran fell and hit his mouth on a ladder. The examiner reported that the Veteran loosened the left upper incisor and pierced his lower leg. It was noted that the wound was cleaned, and that the Veteran was referred to a dentist for his left lose tooth. Post-service VA treatment records show that the Veteran was treated for variously diagnosed right knee problems, including a right knee torn meniscus repair; knee pain, status post replacement on the right side; status post right knee arthroscopic surgery; status post right knee replacement; and a right total knee arthroplasty, etc. A May 2018 lay statement from the Veteran's brother-in-law indicates that after the Veteran's discharge from the Navy, and his return to his home and family, he had changed in many ways. The Veteran's brother-in-law stated that the Veteran complained about soreness in both knees, and that he had trouble walking. An August 2021 lay statement from the Veteran's brother indicates that the Veteran was happy and full of energy when he entered the Navy. The Veteran's brother stated that when the Veteran completed his two years of active service, his personality totally changed. The Veteran's brother reported that the Veteran had become moody and quiet, and that he no longer wanted to socialize and do the things he had previously done. The Veteran's brother maintained that the Veteran often complained of pain in his back, right knee, and hips, which seemed to cause him to limp. He stated that the Veteran's depression seemed to get worse, which eventually led him to seek psychiatric help and undergo shock treatments. The Board observes that the Veteran's service treatment records show that he was treated for right knee (and leg) problems on multiple occasions. The Board also notes that post-service VA treatment records show that the Veteran was treated for variously diagnosed right knee problems, including a right knee torn meniscus repair; knee pain, status post replacement on the right side; status post right knee arthroscopic surgery; status post right knee replacement; and a right total knee arthroplasty, etc. The Board observes that the Veteran has reported that he suffered from right knee problems during service and since service. Additionally, the Veteran's brother-in-law stated that the after the Veteran's discharge from the Navy, he had changed in many ways, and that he complained about soreness in both knees, and that he had trouble walking. The Veteran's brother also maintained that the Veteran often complained of pain in his right knee. The Board observes that the Veteran is currently diagnosed with a right knee disability, as indicated by the numerous right knee diagnoses discussed above. The Board finds the Veteran's reports of right knee problems during and since his period of service to be credible. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007) (holding that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when a lay person is competent to identify the medical condition, or reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or the lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional). The Board also finds the statements from the Veteran's brother-in-law, and his brother, respectively, that the Veteran complained of right knee problems when he was discharged from the Navy, to be credible. Resolving any doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's right knee disability commenced during his period of service. In light of the evidence, the Board cannot conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against granting service connection for a right knee disability. Therefore, service connection for a right knee disability is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As the Board has granted direct service connection in this matter, it need not address other theories of service connection. REASONS FOR REMAND The remaining issues on appear are entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability; a left hip disability; leukemia; sleep apnea; and for erectile dysfunction. As discussed above, the Board has granted service connection for a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified, and for a right knee disability. Given this change in circumstances, and to accord the Veteran due process, the RO should readjudicate the issues of entitlement to service connection for a right hip disability; a left hip disability; leukemia; sleep apnea; and for erectile dysfunction. The Veteran contends that he has a right hip disability; a left hip disability; leukemia; sleep apnea; and erectile dysfunction, that are all related to service. He specifically maintains that he injured his right hip and left hip during service when he was carrying three cases of food on his back, and he slipped and fell backwards while climbing a ladder. The Veteran also states that he believes that his leukemia might be related to his exposure to lead paint during service. He reports that his physician specifically told him that his leukemia could be related to his lead paint exposure. The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from October 1959 to October 1961. He also had additional service in the Naval Reserve. The Veteran's service treatment records do not show treatment for right and/or left hip problems; leukemia; sleep problems, including sleep apnea; or for erectile dysfunction. Post-service VA treatment records show treatment for left hip problems, including a left hip fracture, status post revision; status post a left total arthroplasty conversion; and a left total hip replacement. Such records also show treatment for B cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia, but do not specifically show treatment for right hip problems; sleep apnea; and/or erectile dysfunction. The Board observes that the Veteran has not been afforded VA examinations, as to his claimed right hip disability; left hip disability; leukemia; sleep apnea; and erectile dysfunction. The Board observes that at a July 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran's representative specifically requested that the Veteran be afforded VA examinations, as to his claimed right hip disability; left hip disability; and leukemia. In light of the above, the Board finds that the Veteran has not been afforded VA examinations, with the opportunity to obtain responsive etiological opinions, following a thorough review of the entire claims file, as to his claims for service connection for a right hip disability; a left hip disability; leukemia; sleep apnea; and erectile dysfunction. Such examinations must be accomplished on remand. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ask the Veteran to identify all medical providers who have treated him for a right hip disability; a left hip disability; leukemia; sleep apnea; and for erectile dysfunction, since August 2018. After receiving this information and any necessary releases, obtain copies of the related medical records which are not already in the claims folder. Document any unsuccessful efforts to obtain the records, inform the Veteran of such, and advise him that he may obtain and submit those records himself. 2. Notify the Veteran that he may submit lay statements from himself and from other individuals who have first-hand knowledge, and/or were contemporaneously informed of his in-service and post-service symptomatology regarding his claimed right hip disability; left hip disability; leukemia; sleep apnea; and erectile dysfunction. The Veteran should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this lay evidence. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible) to determine the onset and/or etiology of his claimed right hip disability and left hip disability. The claims file must be reviewed by the examiner. The examiner must diagnose all current right hip disabilities and left hip disabilities. The examiner must then opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any currently diagnosed right hip disabilities and left hip disabilities, are related to, and/or had their onset during, the Veteran's period of service. The examiner must specifically acknowledge and discuss any reports by the Veteran of treatment for right hip problems and left hip problems during service and since service. The examiner must state whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed right hip disabilities and left hip disabilities are caused or aggravated by the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, to specifically include his service-connected right knee disability. 4. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination(s) (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible) to determine the onset and/or etiology of his claimed leukemia; sleep apnea; and erectile dysfunction. The claims file must be reviewed by the examiner(s). The examiner(s) must specifically indicate if the Veteran has currently diagnosed leukemia; sleep apnea; and erectile dysfunction. The examiner(s) must then opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not that any currently diagnosed leukemia; sleep apnea; and erectile dysfunction, are related to, and/or had their onset during, the Veteran's period of service. The examiner(s) must specifically acknowledge and discuss any reports by the Veteran of erectile dysfunction during and since service, and any reports by the Veteran of symptoms he thought were due to leukemia and sleep apnea during service and since service. The examiner(s) must state whether it is at least as likely as not that any diagnosed leukemia; sleep apnea; and erectile dysfunction, are caused or aggravated by Veteran's service-connected psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as a major depressive disorder, unspecified, and an anxiety disorder, unspecified, or any other service-connected disabilities. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. D. Regan, 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.