Citation Nr: 21067381 Decision Date: 11/04/21 Archive Date: 11/04/21 DOCKET NO. 14-16 979 DATE: November 4, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, including depression, is related to active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depression, are not met. 38U.S.C. §§1131, 5107;38C.F.R. §§3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1979 to May 1979. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a hearing in May 2017; a copy of the transcript is of record. This matter has a procedural history which includes an April 2020 Board Decision and a February 2021 Order of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) which enacted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) vacating the Board's April 2020 Decision regarding service connection for the above captioned claim. Service Connection Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present 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 or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Acquired Psychiatric Disorder At the outset, the Board notes that the evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD. See October 2008 private examination and VA examinations in November 2019 and July 2021. Thus, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5) regarding service connection for such a disorder are not applicable to the Veteran's claim. The record does establish that the Veteran has a diagnosis of depression and insomnia disorder. See VA medical records and VA examinations in November 2019 and July 2021. However, there is no objective evidence of record linking the Veteran's mental health disorders to his active duty service. The Veteran has stated that his depression began in-service and that he was assaulted while in-service. See May 2017 hearing testimony. However, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) and military personnel record do not establish the veracity of these statements. The Veteran's STRs are void of diagnosis, report, or treatment of depression or any injury consistent with the Veteran having been engaged in assault. The record does establish that the Veteran sought to separate from his active duty service because the separation from his family was too much of an emotional strain. See April 1970 TDP counseling report. Specifically, the Veteran was found to have a great difficulty in reconciling is personal problems with military life. He was noted to have personal problems in Samoa which overwhelmed him. See April 1979 counseling report. After review of the claims file, including the Veteran's statements about his onset of depression, the July 2021 examiner found that the Veteran's current diagnosis of depression was not related to his active duty service, including the Veteran's claims of depression in-service. The examiner specifically found that the Veteran's current depression was related to his current functioning and difficulties in his life and not related to the reported depression the Veteran experienced while in-service. The examiner, taking into consideration the Veteran's statements about his military service and the evidence of record, found that there was no evidence to suggest that the Veteran's current symptoms were related to his time in service. As such, the examiner found that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's depression and insomnia disorder were related to his active duty service. The Board notes that there is no medical evidence of record which contradicts the examiner's findings or that link the Veteran's currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorders to his active duty service. The Veteran and his representatives have not introduced or identified such evidence. Furthermore, the Board notes that the July 2021 examiner addressed the concerns of the Veteran's potential for a cognitive disorder and found that there was no evidence of a cognitive disorder during his examination of the Veteran. The Board finds the 2021 VA examiner's medical opinions adequate and highly probative both as to the Veteran's subjective report and the resulting objective findings. Specifically, the examiner reviewed the Veteran's claims file, including his STRs, military personnel record, and VA medical records along with conducting an interview and examination of the Veteran. Moreover, the examiner has the requisite medical expertise and had sufficient facts and data on which to base her conclusions. As such, the Board accords the 2021 VA examination opinion great probative weight. The Board has also considered the statements submitted by the Veteran in support of the claim, including his May 2017 hearing testimony. The Board finds that the Veteran is a lay person and is competent to report observable symptoms he experiences through his senses. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). The Veteran, while credible in his relation of his symptoms, has not been shown to possess the requisite training or credentials needed to render a competent opinion as to medical diagnosis or causation. King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed.Cir.2012). The medical findings, as provided in the July 2021 examination report, directly addresses the etiology of the Veteran's mental health disorder. The Board finds that this evidence is the most persuasive and outweighs the Veteran's statements in support of his claim. Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorders are related to his active duty service. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not for application, and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Parrish, 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.