Citation Nr: 21065933 Decision Date: 10/28/21 Archive Date: 10/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-49 324 DATE: October 28, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served on active duty from May 1973 to May 1977. 2. An acquired psychiatric disorder was not shown in service and is not causally or etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW An acquired psychiatric disorder was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In July 2021, the Board remanded the appeal for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. Service connection may be granted directly as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for an acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD. Specifically, he maintains that his psychiatric disorder first manifested during service and has been continuous since separation from service. Turning to the evidence, an August 2021 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with major depressive disorder, recurrent episodes of psychotic features. Private treatment records indicate a diagnosis of major depression and VA treatment records indicate a diagnosis of severe major depression with psychotic features. As such, a current diagnosis has been shown and the first element of service connection has been met. As to in-service incurrence, service treatment records (STRs) are absent of any complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Further, the Veteran was found to be psychiatrically normal in the April 1977 separation examination. Accordingly, an in-service incurrence has not been shown and the second element of service connection has not been met. To the extent that the Veteran has asserted a nexus between his psychiatric disorder and service, he has reported that while he was stationed in Okinawa, Japan, he was on mortuary duty and he worked in a warehouse handling the bodies of soldiers who were being returned to the mainland United States. However, while the medical treatment records diagnosed an acquired psychiatric disorder, the medical evidence has not established a relationship between the Veteran's psychiatric disorder and service. On an August 2021 VA Disability Questionnaire (DBQ), the Veteran reported his experiences as a warehouse supervisor in Okinawa, Japan, where bodies were being stored before being returned to the United States. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with major depressive disorder, recurrent episode, with psychotic features. The examiner opined that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was less likely than not (less than 50 percent probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner noted the Veteran's available STRs were silent with regards to mental health symptoms or treatment encounters. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's mental health history appeared to date back to early 2000s when he came under psychiatric care for depression, some episodes of which included psychotic symptoms including delusions. The examiner noted that the Veteran's symptoms of depression were thought to be in reaction to chronic pain and physical disabilities at that time. The examiner explained that the Veteran continues in active mental health treatment to the present day, and his mental health has been further impacted by other medical issues (hip replacement, knee replacement, prostate cancer, and most recently a stroke). The Board finds that the examination was adequate for evaluation purposes. Specifically, the examiner reviewed the claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and conducted a physical examination. There is no indication that the VA examiner was not fully aware of the Veteran's past medical history or that he misstated any relevant fact. Moreover, the examiner has the requisite medical expertise to render a medical opinion regarding the etiology of the disorder and had sufficient facts and data on which to base the conclusion. Further, there is no contradicting medical evidence of record. Therefore, the Board finds the VA examiner's opinion to be of great probative value. Additionally, while the Veteran has received post-service treatment for psychiatric symptoms, no treating health care provider has suggested these began in service or were a result of service without being provided such history from the Veteran himself. The Board has also considered the Veteran's lay statements that that his disorder was caused by service. He is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. However, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of his current disorder due to the medical complexity of the matter involved. Such competent evidence has been provided by the service records, clinical evidence, and examinations obtained and associated with the claims file. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the clinical findings than to his statements. In light of the above, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. As such, the appeal is denied. Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Grzeczkowicz 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.