Citation Nr: 21071233 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 19-16 758 DATE: November 30, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for adjustment disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT After resolving reasonable doubt in his favor, the Veteran's adjustment disorder is related to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for adjustment disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 2003 to January 2004 and June 2004 to June 2005, with service in Iraq. He has an additional period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from April 2000 to October 2000. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In November 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Although the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) adjudicated two separate issues of entitlement to service connection for adjustment disorder and alcohol use disorder in early remission, both of which were appealed to the Board, the Board has recharacterized the issues into one issue encompassing any acquired psychological disorder. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychological disorder. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires evidence showing: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated in service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). A veteran is presumed to have been sound upon entry into the military, except as to conditions noted at the time of the acceptance, examination, or enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the condition existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1111 (2012); Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The presumption of soundness applies only when a disease or injury not noted upon entry to service manifests in service, and a question arises as to whether it preexisted service. Gilbert v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 48, 55 (2012), aff'd 749 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The burden falls on VA to rebut the presumption of soundness by clear and unmistakable evidence that an injury or disease manifested in service was both preexisting and not aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1111; Wagner v. Principi, 370 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed.Cir.2004). Clear and unmistakable evidence means that the evidence cannot be misinterpreted and misunderstood, i.e., it is undebatable. Quirin v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 390, 396 (2009). Clear and unmistakable evidence can consist of the veteran's own admissions of a preservice disability. Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 237 (2012). If there is clear and unmistakable evidence to show that the veteran's disability was both preexisting and not aggravated by service, then the veteran is not entitled to service-connected benefits for the preexisting condition. Wagner, 370 F.3d at 1096. A May 2018 VA examiner diagnosed chronic adjustment disorder and alcohol use disorder in early remission. While the examiner opined that the Veteran's alcohol abuse began several years prior to his enlistment, his enlistment examination was normal. As there has not been clear and unmistakable evidence that the Veteran had a pre-existing disability, he is presumed sound upon entering service. The VA examiner opined it was less likely than not that the Veteran's adjustment disorder was related to service and discussed that the Veteran did not seek mental health services until 2013, when he and his wife met with a counselor for marital therapy. The examiner opined that the Veteran's pre-existing alcohol abuse was exacerbated by his marital difficulties and recent events. Because the opinion relied on the absence of evidence in service treatment records (STRs) and treatment records immediately after service, it is inadequate and given no probative weight. During his November 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his psychological symptoms arose out of his third period of service, when he was deployed to Iraq. He was in fear of his own life nearly every day. His symptoms of fear, anxiety, worry, and depression began during active duty and continued since that time. His symptoms continued to grow, and it took a while to realize that he was experiencing worsening symptoms. He reported that he was short-tempered and depressed prior to his marital problems and that he was drinking alcohol to self-medicate. The undersigned had the opportunity to observe the Veteran during his hearing and finds his testimony credible. While he is not competent to self-diagnose, he is competent to discuss when his symptoms began. His testimony is corroborated by VA treatment records reflecting that he reported he felt his symptoms were caused by his past service. See April 2014 VA treatment records. Thus, in light of the Veteran's competent and credible testimony, the VA examiner's diagnosis and admission that the Veteran had alcohol abuse symptoms prior to his treatment for marital problems, and VA treatment records corroborating such evidence, the Board will resolve reasonable doubt and finds that the Veteran's adjustment disorder was incurred during service. Thus, service connection is warranted. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Sandler, 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.