Citation Nr: 21005329 Decision Date: 02/01/21 Archive Date: 02/01/21 DOCKET NO. 07-15 767 DATE: February 1, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, variously diagnosed as bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his acquired psychiatric disorder was aggravated by his period of active duty for training (ACUDTRA). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for to establish service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, variously diagnosed as bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.306 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had a period of active duty for training from February 1982 to May 1982. A hearing was held at the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in June 2006. Board hearings were held in December 2007 and January 2019. The Veteran maintains that his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his period of ACDUTRA. He has consistently testified that he experienced stressful incidents during basic training and advanced individual training that caused his symptoms to worsen, and that these heightened symptoms persisted following release from ACDUTRA. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, service connection requires (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, 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 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Active military service includes any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty, or any period of inactive duty training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from injury incurred in or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (21) and (24) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (a) and (d). It follows that service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred or aggravated while performing ACDUTRA, or from injury (but not diseases) incurred or aggravated while performing INACDUTRA. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(24), 106, 1131. Generally, no presumptions (including the presumptions of soundness, aggravation, or for presumptive diseases) attach to periods of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA unless “Veteran” status is attained during those periods. Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 466, 470 (1995). As to the presumption of soundness, it does not apply to a claimant who had only ACDUTRA service and who is not otherwise a Veteran. Paulson, 7 Vet. App. at 470. Moreover, if the claimant has not achieved “Veteran” status through a prior period of service, then the presumption of soundness does not attach to a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA, no matter if an examination occurred prior to the period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. Smith v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 40, 45-46 (2010). With respect to a claim for aggravation of a preexisting condition during a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA, in order for a claimant to establish “Veteran” status, the claimant must demonstrate both elements of aggravation: (1) that the preexisting disability permanent worsened in service, and (2) that such worsening was beyond the natural progression of the disease (i.e., such worsening was caused by service). Donnellan v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 167, 174 (2010). In such instances, the claimant is not entitled to the presumption of aggravation standard. See 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(a). The standard of proof for the claimant is the “benefit of the doubt” standard; thus, the claimant must only show that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence to prevail on this matter. Donnellan, 24 Vet. App. at 174. There is no shifting burden to VA as there is when the presumptions of soundness and aggravation apply. Donnellan, 24 Vet. App. at 175. In this case, records obtained from the Social Security Administration (SSA) reflect that the Veteran was awarded SSA disability benefits for a primary diagnosis of affective disorders, and that the disability onset date determined by SSA was March 1988. The medical records upon which SSA made its determination include records showing that the Veteran received psychiatric treatment prior to his period of ACDUTRA. He was admitted for inpatient treatment in June 1976, with a diagnosis of depression. A January 1987 admission record indicates that the Veteran had been admitted for treatment as early as 1983. During his June 2006 hearing, the Veteran indicated that he had flashbacks of being on the rifle range when his gun would not fire. He stated that he sought treatment at a VA outpatient clinic as early as 1983. During his December 2007 hearing, the Veteran testified that he was sent for psychiatric treatment during service, and that his time in service “stressed me out.” During his January 2019 hearing, the Veteran testified that while he had a psychiatric disorder prior to ACDUTRA, it was mild and mostly asymptomatic. He maintained that his psychiatric disorder was aggravated by basic training and infantry training. He related that he was sent to a counselor, but that he was returned to training. He indicated that it was not until service that he experienced significant problems with psychiatric symptoms. He stated that those symptoms persisted following ACDUTRA. In February 2005, the Veteran’s treating psychiatrist indicated that he had treated the Veteran since 1999. He indicated a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. He noted that the Veteran had a low tolerance for stress. He indicated that the Veteran had reportedly never returned to baseline functioning following service, and that he experienced flashbacks and nightmares about experiences during his period of service. Having carefully reviewed the record, the Board concludes that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is warranted. As discussed, psychiatric treatment is documented prior to the Veteran’s period of ACDUTRA. However, the record reflects more significant symptoms and functional impairment during the years following service. The Veteran has consistently reported that he experienced worsening of his psychiatric symptomatology during ACDUTRA, and that this level of symptomatology persisted following service. His treating psychiatrist indicated in 2005 that the Veteran reported nightmares and flashbacks of incidents during service, and that the Veteran had not returned to a baseline of functioning following service. (Continued on the next page)   In consideration of the above, the Board finds that there is at least an approximate balance of evidence with respect to the question of whether the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder was permanently aggravated by service. Therefore, having resolved doubt in favor of the Veteran, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, variously diagnosed as bipolar disorder and schizoaffective disorder, is granted. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Barone, 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.