Citation Nr: 21007153 Decision Date: 02/08/21 Archive Date: 02/08/21 DOCKET NO. 20-22 088 DATE: February 8, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) is granted. Service connection for alcohol use disorder, as secondary to the service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and MDD is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder related to events which occurred during his service. 2. The Veteran’s alcohol use disorder is proximately due to his service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and MDD. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and MDD, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. 2. The criteria for service connection for alcohol use disorder as secondary to the service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and MDD, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service in the United States Air Force from September 1969 to May 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2017 rating decision of the Detroit, Michigan Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In a February 2021 statement to VA, the Veteran withdrew his request for a Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. The issue on appeal was previously stated as service connection for PTSD. However, when a claimant files a claim for VA benefits, he is seeking service connection for symptoms, regardless of how those symptoms are diagnosed or labeled. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). As such, the Board has recharacterized the issue of service connection for PTSD as entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and MDD. The Veteran alleges that his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his traumatic in-service experience of having to notify soldiers’ families when they had been killed in action or were a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1137; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that, in order to prevail on the issue of service connection on the merits, there must be medical evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See generally Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). The Veteran’s service treatment records show that at service separation in May 1972, he was evaluated as psychiatrically “normal.” The examining clinician, however, noted that the Veteran reported having had depression, worry, and trouble sleeping since January 1972. On an accompanying Report of Medical History, the Veteran reported that he had had frequent trouble sleeping and depression/ excessive worry. The Veteran’s military personnel records show that he had requested a hardship discharge from service in April 1972 based on mental health problems with his spouse, financial difficulties, marital issues, and difficulty adapting to military life. The Veteran submitted statements from his sister-in-law, pastor and friends, all of whom attested to the Veteran’s spouse’s deteriorating mental status and her and the Veteran’s marriage. Further, the Veteran has several acquired psychiatric diagnoses of record, including PTSD and MDD. All diagnoses were given by separate treatment providers on different dates, but for the same or similar symptoms claimed by the Veteran. As such, the Board finds that a medical nexus for any of these psychiatric diagnoses is sufficient for establishing the nexus prong of the Veteran’s service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder. To that effect, September 2017 reports, prepared by the Veteran’s treating psychiatrist, contain his opinion that the Veteran has PTSD as a result of having to notify soldiers’ families when they had been killed, and that his severe PTSD had continued since that time. In January 2020, a VA examiner concluded that there were sources of evidence to prove that the Veteran was showing signs of psychological distress during his military service. Therefore, according to the VA clinician, it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s depression and secondary conditions of alcohol abuse disorder and insomnia had started during his service. There are no other opinions, private or VA, that contradict these favorable private and VA opinions. Thus, the Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, and MDD, should be granted based on the Veteran’s private psychiatrist’s and VA examiner’s opinions linking his current psychiatric disorders to his in-service experiences. As noted above, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s alcohol abuse was secondary to his depression. Although service connection is precluded under 38 U.S.C. § 1110 for primary alcohol abuse and for secondary disabilities resulting from primary alcohol abuse, service connection may be granted for an alcohol abuse disability if such disability is secondary to a service-connected disability. See Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1368, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran’s current alcohol use disorder is proximately due to his service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and MDD. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for alcohol use disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Carole Kammel, 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.