Citation Nr: 21072298 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 09-23 854 DATE: December 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bipolar disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT Bipolar disorder is attributable to active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Bipolar disorder was incurred during peacetime service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1975 to September 1983. The Veteran died in January 2019. The appellant claims as the surviving spouse. This case was previously before the Board in July 2021, at which time it was remanded for further development. The directives having been substantially complied with, the matter again is before the Board. D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for bipolar disorder The appellant contends that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is due to his military service, specifically several experiences as an MP. To establish service connection a Veteran must generally show: "(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). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). The Board concludes that the Veteran's bipolar disorder is related to his active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). VA treatment records show that the Veteran was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2004. Mental health treatment notes repeatedly attribute the Veteran's symptoms to his reported experiences as an MP during service. The Veteran submitted multiple statements regarding witnessing a man being killed while service as an MP. Military personnel records clearly document the Veteran's MP service, though the specific reported incidents are not noted. A disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) was submitted in July 2013. The examiner diagnosed PTSD and bipolar disorder. The indicated causes were multiple traumatic events as military policeman as well as the death of the Veteran's son. The Veteran received a VA examination in March 2018. The examiner stated that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for PTSD but did have bipolar disorder. The examiner opined that the bipolar disorder was less likely than not related to his service because the Veteran did not report any symptoms until many years later when he injured his back and was unable to work his job at the post office. An addendum opinion was obtained in July 2021 to clarify the Veteran's diagnosis and any potential relationship to service. The clinician stated that the Veteran had a bipolar diagnosis and opined that it was at least as likely related to his service. The rationale was that the VA treatment notes from the time of diagnosis and initial treatment clearly related the diagnosis to the Veteran's service as an MP. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of a finding that the Veteran's bipolar disorder is related to his active service. The Veteran consistently reported the incidents that occurred while he was an MP, and the Board finds those statements credible, as they are not contradicted by other evidence of record. Multiple treatment records and the July 2021 VA addendum opinion relate the Veteran's bipolar disorder to his MP service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for bipolar disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. H. N. SCHWARTZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Creegan, Amanda 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.