Citation Nr: 21076655 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 19-17 303 DATE: December 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for psychiatric disability, diagnosed as generalized anxiety disorder with panic disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's generalized anxiety disorder with panic disorder is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for generalized anxiety disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 2005 to February 2006, from July 2006 to November 2007 and from March 2009 to May 2009, including service in the Persian Gulf. The Veteran presented sworn testimony before the undersigned in December 2021. Although the AOJ adjudicated two separate issues of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and panic disorder with generalized anxiety disorder, both of which were separately appealed, the Board has recharacterized the issues into one issue encompassing any psychiatric disability. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). At the hearing, the Veteran's representative clarified that there was only one issue on appeal in light of Clemons, i.e., service connection for psychiatric disability. As such, that is the issue that the Board will proceed to adjudicate. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Lay evidence can also be competent and sufficient evidence of a diagnosis or to establish etiology if (1) the layperson is competent to identify the medical condition; (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis; or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When considering whether lay evidence is competent, the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1376-77. Entitlement to service connection for psychiatric disability The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. Specifically, the Veteran states that she began experiencing symptoms including depression anger and anxiety and feelings of guilt knowing people while serving in the Persian Gulf and that these psychiatric problems have continued since that time. See December 2021 Hearing Transcript and December 2018 Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. See June 2018 Initial PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ). Additionally, the Veteran continued medical treatment for his psychiatric disabilities with therapy and medications. See February 2019 Mental Health Case Manager Note; see also December 2018 Notice of Disagreement. The Board notes the Veteran has multiple diagnoses including depression and panic disorder. See December 2018 and September 2018 Mental Health Notes. The Veteran testified that he had no psychiatric problems prior to service; however, he began having problems while serving in Kuwait. He testified that the stress hit him pretty hard. He stated that his psychiatric problems began in service and have continued since that time. After discharge he sought help from his pastor. He expressed feelings of guilt, anxiety, depression and anger. His family encouraged him to seek treatment because the Veteran initially saw it as a sign of weakness. See December 2021 Hearing Transcript. The Veteran's friend submitted a statement that he was part of the Veteran's support system after his deployment in 2006 through 2008. He noticed that upon return, the Veteran had changed. He exhibited signs of stress, anger and depression and started drinking. He noted the Veteran became distant from his family and lived with other people for a while. See December 2018 Buddy Statement. The Veteran's sister stated that after he returned from his deployment, she noticed a change in his attitude. She remarked that he became distant and started living with other people. He became angry, depressed and anxious. See January 2019 Buddy Statement. Finally, the Veteran's friend noted he knew the Veteran before his 2006 deployment. He stated he was happy and social prior to service. However, after he returned, she noticed he drank heavily and was depressed and anxious. The She stated that the Veteran sought therapy with his church during that time. See December 2018 Buddy Statement. The Veteran is 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 medical and lay evidence linking the Veteran's psychiatric disability to service is probative, competent and credible. Moreover, the Veteran has various treatment records of his psychiatric disability. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's August 2018 VA examiner's negative opinion. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran's diagnosed mental health disorders are not related to him witnessing and interacting with an injured soldier. As a finder of fact, however, given 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 the Veteran's generalized anxiety disorder with panic disorder is warranted. Thus, service connection for generalized anxiety disorder with panic disorder is granted. 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). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jordan, Jacquelynn 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.