Citation Nr: 21010440 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 14-39 417 DATE: February 24, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety, is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not meet the diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD, nor is the Veteran currently diagnosed with any other acquired psychiatric disorder. 2. The Veteran’s currently diagnosed pervasive developmental disorder and borderline intellectual functioning are not diseases or injuries under the meaning of applicable law and regulations for VA purposes, and therefore are not subject to service connection. In addition, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran incurred a superimposed psychiatric disease or injury upon his developmental disorder during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 2004 to April 2009. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2012 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The case was previously remanded by the Board for further development in June 2018; specifically, the RO was instructed to obtain the Veteran’s outstanding treatment records from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the VA. As these records have been added to the claims file, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with its June 2018 remand instructions. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability The Veteran initially filed claims for PTSD and depression in May 2012. This was later broadened into a single claim for an acquired psychiatric disability. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 6 (2009). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Specifically, service connection for PTSD requires the presence of three elements: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD; (2) medical evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and a claimed in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). For the purposes of establishing service connection, medical evidence diagnosing PTSD must be in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), which refers to the DSM-5 as the source of criteria for the diagnosis of claimed psychiatric disorders. The Veteran’s claim does not meet the first element of service connection. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records and post-service medical records does not show any diagnosis of PTSD, depression, or other acquired psychiatric disability, despite the Veteran undergoing several evaluations by qualified psychologists in the years following his military service. A VA clinical psychologist in February 2012 noted that: When queried about his mood, the Veteran stated that he is ‘mostly’ or ‘always’ in a ‘good mood.’ The Veteran denied any problems with depression and did not endorse any symptoms consistent with a mood disorder. Further, the Veteran did not endorse any symptoms of an anxiety disorder, including PTSD. This psychologist went on to say that the Veteran did not present with any symptoms of PTSD, a mood disorder, or an anxiety disorder. Another VA psychologist noted in March 2012 that, aside from a history of developmental disorder and learning disabilities, the Veteran “had no significant psychiatric history.” In April 2012, a VA neuropsychologist said that “efforts to identify psychological factors that might be contributing to [the Veteran’s] difficulties have not identified any major psychiatric difficulties (such as depression or PTSD) that might account for his worse performance.” In July 2012, a VA psychologist completed a Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) stating that it was less likely than not that the Veteran had PTSD related to service, because the Veteran did not report a specific event that would qualify as a traumatic stressor, and reported no symptoms that would meet criteria for an anxiety or mood disorder. During visits to VA Medical Centers in May 2015 and May 2020, the Veteran was screened for PTSD and depression and found negative for both. This is not to say that the Veteran does not have any psychological impairments. In July 2010, the Veteran underwent a neuropsychological evaluation by a private psychologist, who concluded that the Veteran had borderline intellectual functioning. The psychologist considered pervasive developmental disorder and schizoid/schizotypical personality disorders as possible diagnoses. In September 2010, the same psychologist followed up with a letter to the Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, stating that the psychologist “believe[d] that [the Veteran’s] clinical presentation [could] best be summed up by a diagnosis within the autistic spectrum, specifically pervasive developmental disorder NOS [not otherwise specified].” SSA relied upon these findings to determine that the Veteran was disabled. The July 2012 VA examiner similarly found that the Veteran had two diagnosed mental disorders: pervasive developmental disorder and borderline intellectual functioning. However, developmental disorders, personality disorders, and intellectual disabilities—such as the Veteran has been diagnosed with—are not diseases or injuries in the meaning of applicable legislation for disability compensation purposes.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.9; 38 CFR § 4.127. Developmental and congenital disorders by definition have their onset in childhood, and cannot develop after someone is old enough to be in the military. These conditions therefore cannot be service connected. The exception is when a service-related acquired psychiatric disability is found to be superimposed upon or otherwise related to a personality disorder or intellectual disability—but as discussed, the Veteran has not been shown to have an acquired psychiatric disability in this case. For these reasons, the July 2012 VA examiner found that it was less likely than not that any of the Veteran’s mental disabilities were caused by, aggravated by, or otherwise related to his military service. Continued on next page Because the Veteran has not been shown to have a psychiatric disability that is eligible for service connection, he does not meet the first requirement for service connection, and his claim must be denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). DELYVONNE M. WHITEHEAD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Shermila Sundquist 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.