Citation Nr: 21068559 Decision Date: 11/10/21 Archive Date: 11/10/21 DOCKET NO. 16-17 735 DATE: November 10, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include Unspecified Anxiety Disorder and Unspecified Depressive Disorder, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the record shows that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric condition had its onset in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The criteria for service connection for acquired psychiatric condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1989 to March 1993. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In July 2021, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. At the hearing, the undersigned Veterans Law Judge granted the Veteran's motion to keep the record open for a period of 30 days to afford him the opportunity to submit additional evidence in support of his appeal. The Veteran has done so and the Board will consider that evidence in the adjudication of this appeal. The Veteran's claims of service connection for PTSD and depression have been recharacterized to include all psychiatric conditions, to comport with the evidence of record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Service Connection Acquired psychiatric condition The Veteran seeks service connection for his psychiatric condition. In support, he reported that he started suffering from depression and other psychiatric symptoms in service and thereafter. See BVA hearing transcript (July 2021). Indeed, his attorney indicated that the Veteran's depression, which was one of his "main" problems, started in service. Additionally, his medical treatment record shows a history of a psychiatric disability, and treatment. See VA medical treatment record (September 2013 and August 2014). In general, service connection may be granted for a disability or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). 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. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). 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). 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). The Veteran has been diagnosed by VA doctors with PTSD, depression and anxiety disorder. See VA medical examination (February 2014); and VA medical treatment record (August 2014). Thus, the Veteran has a current condition and establishes the first element for service connection. Additionally, the Veteran's medical records shows treatment to include medications, groups, and therapy for his psychiatric disability. See VA medical treatment record (September 2013 and August 2014). The Veteran reported having recurrent psychiatric problems since service and his family members submitted lay statements corroborating that account. See Buddy statements J.H., B.G., L.B., M.D., B.D., (August 2021). 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 depression and anxiety. The evidence shows that the Veteran's psychiatric disability is related to service, thus, service connection is warranted. See Flynn v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 500, 503 (1994) (noting that "the element of cause and effect has been totally by-passed in favor of a simple temporal relationship between the incurrence of the disability and the period of active duty"); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (Service connection connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces). Further, the Board also finds that the competent and credible medical and lay evidence, shows that his psychiatric problems began during service and have been recurrent since that time. This includes not only the Veteran's sworn testimony but also numerous corroborating lay statements, as well as medical evidence showing that the Veteran has psychiatric disability. The Veteran and the other lay persons who submitted statements are competent to report his psychiatric symptoms that began in service and the Board finds the Veteran's 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 service connection for 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(a). 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.