Citation Nr: 21005875 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 15-13 699 DATE: February 2, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s unspecified anxiety disorder had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from June 1971to June 1974. The Veteran and his wife testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a November 2018 hearing. This claim was previously remanded by the Board in an August 2019 decision for further development. In the August 2019 Board decision, the claim of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was reopened, and recharacterized as an acquired psychiatrics disability to include PTSD. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). The Board noted that March 2004 VA treatment records find that the Veteran has mild symptoms of PTSD, depressive disorder, and anxiety state. The Veteran contends in the November 2018 Board hearing that the circumstances of his service, which included not being afforded the opportunity to be sent to Vietnam, led to a change in his personality and the onset of his psychiatric symptoms: the anxiety, depression, sleep problems and hostility. The Veteran’s wife also testified that she knew the Veteran before he went into service and noticed a change in his personality after he left the military as the disappointment in his circumstances in service led to the onset of his psychiatric symptoms. The claim was remanded to obtain an adequate VA examination for the Veteran’s psychiatric disability. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability The Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is warranted. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). The Veteran has a diagnosis of unspecified anxiety disorder. See November 2019 VA PTSD Examination. The Board finds that the evidence shows the Veteran’s unspecified anxiety disorder began during service and has been recurrent since that time. The Veteran is competent to report 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 Veteran’s service treatment records do not contain complaints, treatment or diagnosis for any psychiatric condition. Medical records from VAMC Fayetteville show the Veteran sought mental health treatment in July 2004, and the examiner noted Veteran mentioned several traumatic events, which has led to personality change and irritability. Veteran was provided a private mental health examination in March 2014 which provided diagnoses of depressive disorder NOS. The examiner noted the complexity of his impairment was mild, and a review of the medical records do not show any further mental health treatment after April 2014. The Veteran reports that since he was not allowed to go to Vietnam for combat, he has suffered from stress, depression, insomnia, nightmares, built up frustration and was told he had PTSD as a direct residual of the severe basic training and preparation for combat he underwent and the subsequent inability to deploy to Vietnam. The Veteran asserts that he was denied the opportunity to go into combat, he felt rejected and that affected him mentally in service and since service. See January 2014 Notice of Disagreement; see also April 2014 Statement in Support of Claim. The Veteran states he was sent to Germany instead, where he started feeling depressed, short tempered, irritates and frustrated; he had issues with depression, mood swings, anger, and began to drink heavily. He has continued to have these mental issues, coupled with nightmares and flashbacks of being rejected the opportunity to fight for the country while in service. See March 2015 Form 9. In the post-remand VA examination completed in November 2019, the examiner held that the anxiety disorder symptoms do not meet the DSM-5 criteria for PTSD, and it was less likely than not that the anxiety disorder was incurred in or caused by service. The examiner’s rationale was Veteran did not have a pre-military history of mental health issues, there were no report of mental health issues while Veteran was in service and no consistent report of ongoing mental health problems since military service. Based upon the relevant evidence to include the previous psychiatric examination with the diagnosis of PTSD based upon the homicide of his mother, the Statement in Support of Claim that does not meet Criteria A for PTSD diagnosis, the testimony in a letter by the Veteran and his spouse that identifies the stressor of not being deployed as the precursor to personality changes such as anger and hostility, and the negative findings of the VA examination, the examiner opted for a negative nexus opinion. The VA examiner stated that Veteran’s unspecified anxiety disorder is triggered situationally and leads to intermittent symptoms; these symptoms were likely pre-existing and not a product of his time in service. See November 2019 VA Examination. At his November 2018 Board hearing, the Veteran and his spouse testified that he felt psychologically depressed, anxiety and other psychological issues because he did not get an opportunity to go to Vietnam; he began to drink heavily and get into fights afterwards. The Veteran’s spouse testified that Veteran was very calm and easy going in high-school, and after Basic training in service he became a totally different person. As such, the Veteran is presumed to have been sound at the time of entry into service with respect to a psychiatric disorder; service led to a change in personality and led to onset of psychiatric symptoms including anxiety, depression, sleep problems and hostility. See November 2018 Hearing Transcript. The Board acknowledges the lack of service records containing any psychiatric disability complaints and the negative nexus opinion from the November 2019 VA examination. The Board finds, however, that the competent and credible lay evidence shows that the Veteran has had a psychiatric disability during and since service. The notations contained in the medical treatment records, together with the current diagnosis and the competent and credible statements of the Veteran and his wife attesting to the onset and continuation of his psychiatric disability are sufficient to link the condition to service. Here, the evidence shows that the Veteran’s current psychiatric disability had its onset in service, service connection is warranted. 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”). Therefore, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is granted. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s medical records shows diagnoses of multiple psychiatric disorders; however, the Veteran testified that a grant of service connection for any psychiatric disorder, regardless of the diagnosis, would satisfy his appeal. See November 2018 Hearing Transcript. Thus, the Board need not address whether service connection for any other psychiatric disorder is warranted. See AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, 38 (1993). STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Zarar Ahmed, Attorney Advisor 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.