Citation Nr: 21075215 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 16-46 991 DATE: December 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychological disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had any acquired psychological disorder at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for any acquired psychological disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from February 1965 to July 1966. In September 2021, the Board most recently remanded the issue on appeal for further development, and the case has since been returned to the Board. The Board finds that the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has substantially complied with the remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Entitlement to service connection for any acquired psychological disorder The Veteran contends that his claimed psychological disorder is the result of his active service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Service treatment records are silent for any diagnosis, complaints, or treatment of a psychological disorder. In July 2021, the Veteran was provided a VA examination. The examiner opined that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for PTSD or any other acquired psychiatric disorder using DSM-5 criteria. The examiner accepted the Veteran's representation that he had not had suicidal thoughts or sought treatment for any mental health concerns outside of stress related to his divorce. They noted that the Veteran had an active prescription for Fluoxetine but that the Veteran did not feel he needed that medication. However, the Board noted in a September 2021 remand that the examiner did not acknowledge or address the Veteran's VA treatment records from October 2020 showing that he sought treatment related to his claimed in-service stressor, scored in the mild depression range on the BDI-II, and was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with mixed features under DSM-5 criteria. The examiner also did not acknowledge or address a May 2017 VA treatment record noting the Veteran's report of suicidal thoughts in the past three months. Subsequently, the Veteran attended a VA Mental Disorders examination in October 2021. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not have a current mental diagnosis. Further, he opined that the Veteran's claimed condition was not a result of service because the "Veteran does not DSM-5 criteria for any mental health disorder." Further, when asked to discuss the Veteran's VA treatment records beginning October 25, 2015, including the results of the Beck Depression Inventory Second Edition and Beck Anxiety Inventory tests and the DSM-5 diagnosis of Adjustment disorder with mixed features, the examiner responded with "Veteran's records (10/20) show that in 2015 show that he was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder. Veteran said he has never been depressed except when his daughter died in 1975." In addition, when asked to discuss the May 2017 VA Suicide/Homicide Assessment including the Veteran's statement that he had thoughts of suicide recently but no plans to follow through, the examiner responded, "Veteran denied ever feeling like suicide or homicide." Further, when asked whether the Veteran had an acquired psychiatric disorder at any time during or close to the pendency of this appeal, even if he no longer meets the diagnostic criteria, the examiner responded "Veteran was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder in October 2020. It was noted that Veteran takes Fluoxetine. He said he just takes it because they told him to take it. He said he does not know if it does anything or why he is taking it." The rationale attached to this opinion was: According to Veteran's record, he has not been found to meet DSM-5 criteria for any mental disorder. He does not meet criteria at the time of this evaluation. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of any acquired psychological disorder and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The VA examiners evaluated the Veteran and determined that, while he experienced subjective symptoms of a psychological disorder, he did not have a diagnosis. Further, VA treatment records do not contain a diagnosis of any acquired psychological disorders. While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of an acquired psychological disorder, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. A. Elliott II, 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.