Citation Nr: 21009607 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 15-03 739 DATE: February 23, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as PTSD, is denied. FINDING OF FACT There is no clinical evidence of a current acquired psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as PTSD, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1971 to April 1972 and from December 1972 to April 1977. He appeals a September 2011 rating decision denying entitlement to service connection for PTSD Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310. Generally, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present 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 or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as PTSD. The Veteran claims that suffers from PTSD that is attributable to active service. After review of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted. As a threshold matter, the Board finds that there is no evidence of record that shows a currently diagnosed psychiatric disability for which service connection may be granted. At his March 2011 VA examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran was not presenting with any psychiatric disturbance at the time. The examiner further determined that the Veteran’s claimed stressors are not related to any fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and his psychiatric presentation did not result in impairment either socially or occupationally. The Veteran disagreed with the exam results, asserting on his January 2015 VA Form 9 that he was in fact being treated by VA for PTSD. The Veteran was scheduled for a new VA examination based on this assertion. The Veteran was sent notification of a scheduled VA examination in March December 2019. He did not show for the scheduled examination. He was again notified of another rescheduled examination in December 2019. Again, he did not show for the examination. The Veteran’s representative argues that the Veteran can no longer be contacted by phone and it is unclear whether he has received notice of the scheduled examinations. The representative argues for yet another examination to be scheduled. However, the Board finds that remand for a new examination would be unproductive. Importantly, review of the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records reveal that he was not being treated for PTSD at any time during the appeal. In fact, records show that the Veteran’s spouse contacted VA about obtaining a mental health evaluation on the precise day that he submitted his VA Form alleging current treatment. Based on review of the Veteran’s symptoms, a diagnosis of alcohol addiction was rendered. It was further noted that the Veteran did not endorse any disruptions or concerns due to any thoughts, memories, or dreams at the time. Therefore, the Board finds that previous reasons for granting the Veteran an additional VA examination are unsubstantiated and remand for another VA examination is unwarranted. See Turk v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 565, 569 (2008). The Board observes that the Veteran has been diagnosed with alcohol addiction. However, VA regulation prohibits the establishment of service connection for disabilities which result solely from a veteran’s abuse of alcohol. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Hence, as no underlying psychiatric condition has been shown for which service connection may be warranted, entitlement to service connection for the Veteran’s alcohol addiction is not at issue under any theory of entitlement. Based on the foregoing, the Board must deny the claim as the threshold requirement of a current disability has not been met. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. However, because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine does not apply. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).   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. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Daniel Ballinger, Associate Counsel