Citation Nr: 21007140 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-40 597 DATE: February 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, claimed as secondary to service-connected back and left knee disabilities, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, to include as due to radiation exposure, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. 2. A bilateral eye disability is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to an in-service event, injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, as secondary to service-connected back and left knee disabilities, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310. 2. The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from May 1966 to February 1969. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeal (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in January 2019. A transcript of the hearing is in the Veteran’s file. The Board previously remanded the appeal in March 2020 and April 2016, and the matter has been returned for appellate consideration. The development ordered by the Board in its remands (first, in April 2016, to issue a statement of the case, and second, in March 2020, to obtain additional VA and private treatment records and to schedule the Veteran for relevant examinations) has been completed, and the Board finds substantial compliance with its remand instructions. Service Connection Service connection may be granted directly as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) The existence of a current 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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The requirement for a current disability is satisfied if the disability is present at any point proximate to the claim, during the claim, or to the appeal period. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2014). If there is no evidence of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Additionally, there must be a demonstration of symptoms proximate to, or since, the time the application is filed. Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, as secondary to service-connected back and left knee disabilities. The Veteran asserts that service connection is warranted for a psychiatric disorder. The initial threshold question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability, and if so, whether that disability began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. at 294 (2013); McClain, 21 Vet. App. at 321; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a), (d). Review of the record indicates, there is no evidence of record which reflects a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder. The October 2020 VA examiner found that the Veteran did not have diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder pursuant to the DSM-5 criteria. The VA examiner highlighted that the Veteran’s medical treatments records indicated that he frequently received negative scores for PTSD. Moreover, there has been no verification of his reported military stressors. As such, the VA examiner held that the Veteran “has not been diagnosed with any DSM-5 disorder during the current evaluation, it is less likely than not that he presents with any mental condition.” The Board finds this examination adequate (as it responded directly to the questions posed by the Board in its remand, contained a well-reasoned rationale, and was based on a thorough review of the record), and it is probative evidence against a finding of a current psychiatric disorder. The remaining evidence, to include VA and private treatment records, similarly fails to show that the Veteran is currently diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder. While the Veteran believes that he is diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education. 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 provided by the October 2020 VA examiner. Further, any statements of the Veteran’s regarding his symptoms alone is not sufficient to show a psychiatric disorder for VA benefits purposes. Thus, the most probative evidence fails to demonstrate that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran currently has a psychiatric disorder. As such, service connection is not warranted. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1333 (1997) (holding that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation). As noted above, entitlement for service-connected disease or injury is specifically limited to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability, and in absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225. In sum, the Veteran has not satisfied the necessary element of a present disability with respect to a psychiatric disorder, and thus, further discussion of the in-service incurrence or nexus elements (or of secondary service connection consideration) is unnecessary. The the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and the benefit of the doubt rule is inapplicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (2019); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Accordingly, service connection is not warranted for a psychiatric disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, to include as die to radiation exposure. The Veteran is seeking service connection for a bilateral eye disability. The Veteran contends that his bilateral eye disability is due to military service, to include radiation exposure. 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. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a bilateral eye disability, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s disability had its onset in service or is otherwise related to his active service. The Board makes no finding as to whether there was an in-service incurrence of the Veteran’s bilateral eye disability. The Veteran alleges that his MOS as a radar maintenance chief exposed him to radiation and microwaves, which have led to his current bilateral eye disability. Ultimately, the Board declines to make a finding as to whether the Veteran’s statements alone can support a finding of an in-service incurrence of his claimed disability, for even if the Board finds his recitation to be credible, there is no competent evidence that the Veteran’s current bilateral eye disability is related to his active service. The August 2020 examination specifically addressed the etiology of the Veteran’s bilateral eye disability, age-related cataracts. The VA examiner found that the Veteran only had a diagnosis of age-related cataracts. She concluded that it is not at least likely as not that the Veteran’s bilateral eye disability had its onset in service or is otherwise related to his active service. The VA examiner noted that the Veteran’s cataracts are age-related. The VA examiner highlighted that in 2011, the Veteran’s vision acuities were 20/20 and 20/25 in the right and left eyes respectively. Moreover, the VA examiner opined that if the Veteran was exposed to excessive radiation exposure, from 1967 to 1969, that the opacities and cataracts would have be denser earlier than the age of 75 years old, forty-two years after service. In this case, as to the issue of whether the Veteran’s bilateral eye disability is related to his military service, the Board finds that the August 2020 VA examination report is the most probative evidence of record as it was definitive, based upon a complete review of the Veteran’s entire claims file, in consideration of the Veteran’s reported history, prior physical evaluation of the Veteran, and pursuant to the Board’s remand instructions. Furthermore, the VA August 2020 examiner provided a complete and thorough rationale in support of her opinion. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-9 (2000); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). As discussed above, the service treatment records do not support the Veteran’s claim of onset of his disability during service. In fact, the Veteran was not diagnosed until many years after service discharge. The absence of post-service complaints, findings, diagnosis, or treatment for many years after service is one factor that tends to weigh against a finding of continuous symptoms after service separation. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that the lack of contemporaneous medical records is one fact the Board can consider and weigh against the other evidence, although the lack of such medical records does not, in and of itself, render the lay evidence not credible). Thus, any assertions that he may make as to onset during service with subsequent continuity of are not supported by the objective evidence of record. Determining the etiology of a disability such as cataracts is complex, however, requiring medical knowledge or training. The Veteran’s statements regarding the relationship of his bilateral eye disability to his active service are therefore not considered competent. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim. There is no doubt to be resolved. Service connection for a bilateral eye disability is therefore denied. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.R. Higgins, Associate 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.