Citation Nr: 21010832 Decision Date: 02/25/21 Archive Date: 02/25/21 DOCKET NO. 15-03 857A DATE: February 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of PTSD. 2. The Veteran’s current diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder was not incurred in, and is not otherwise related to, his active military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 5, 2001 to January 10, 2002. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2013 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board remanded the appeal in March 2019 for further development. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and schizoaffective disorder is denied. The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder as a result of service. See June 2012 VA Form 21-526. He states that he experienced in-service psychological symptoms during an “enemy attack”, and that he has been experiencing psychological problems since service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, including psychoses, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Veteran received an uncharacterized discharge while still in entry-level status, during the initial 180 days of active duty. The Veteran subsequently attempted to upgrade that discharge, but that attempt was denied by the Army Discharge Review Board in an April 2003 decision. Nonetheless, because the Veteran’s separation occurred while on entry level status, VA regulations hold that this type of discharge “shall be considered under conditions other than dishonorable,” and thus, not a bar from receiving VA benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.12 (k)(1). The Veteran has claimed that he was on base when the installation was attacked by an unknown force and fighting broke out, including the deployment of tanks onto the base. See April 2013 VA Form 21-0781. The Veteran also reported that numerous individuals died during this engagement. Service treatment records make no reference to any psychiatric problems including during the enlistment examination in August 2001. A January 2002 memorandum prepared at the time of separation showed the Veteran was examined within the last 90 days and he was considered physically qualified for separation with no defects found. Personnel records show he received an “Entry Level Separation” and that his character of discharge was “uncharacterized.” A recommendation for discharge references a “lack of reasonable effort,” which included an inability to drill, an apathetic attitude towards training, a lack of maturity, a disrespectful/belligerent attitude, and a tendency to be a malinger and shirker. Treatment records from the State of Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Office of Behavioral Health show the Veteran received psychiatric care in August 2006 and was diagnosed with schizophrenia, chronic paranoia type. The Veteran was also given a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type in August 2008. In a July 2013 memorandum, the AOJ made a formal finding on a lack of information required to verify the claimed service stressful events. The memorandum detailed the specific efforts made to attempt verification, including contact with the Veteran and review of the record. The Board notes that the Veteran’s military personnel records include comprehensive and detailed recruit information for the majority of his active service and do not document the occurrence of the reported service events. The current service connection claim was received in July 2012. The evidence associated with the file since the service connection claim, includes a March 2013 letter from a private clinician who noted that the Veteran had a history of depression and bipolar disorder; a nexus opinion was not provided. The Board remanded the appeal in March 2019 to obtain a VA examination and nexus opinion. The Veteran was provided a VA examination in October 2019. The examiner reviewed the relevant military personnel records, and the Veteran’s post-service clinical records. The examiner indicated the Veteran reported that he did not experience any trauma during his month of service and was not exposed to combat. Upon examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran did not meet any of the criterion for PTSD. The examiner opined that the Veteran does not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. The examiner further concluded that the Veteran’s current diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, by history, is not likely related to his military service. In support, the examiner explained that indicated the Veteran reported that he did not experience any trauma during his month of service and was not exposed to combat and his service records did not support a relationship between his service and his current psychiatric disorder. Service connection for PTSD is not warranted. To the extent that the Veteran asserts he has a diagnosis of PTSD, he is not competent to opine on the matter. While the Veteran is competent to report having experienced mental health symptoms, a particular diagnosis requires psychiatric evaluation by a trained clinician. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As stated by the Federal Circuit, “PTSD is not the type of medical condition that lay evidence... is competent and sufficient to identify.” Young v. McDonald, 766 F.3d 1348, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Board finds the October 2019 opinion, which reflects the Veteran does not have PTSD, is probative evidence in this matter. The examiner has the appropriate training, expertise and knowledge to evaluate the claimed disability and he considered the Veteran’s lay statements, service medical records, and the post-service clinical history. The examiner also provided a cogent rationale for his opinion. There are no competent opinions to the contrary. As there no competent medical evidence of a current diagnosis of PTSD, service connection for PTSD is not warranted. Service connection is not warranted for schizoaffective disorder. As noted, service treatment records do not show a psychiatric disorder was diagnosed in service. There is also no competent evidence of a psychosis in service or within one year after discharge from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Further, the competent and probative October 2019 VA opinion does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s schizoaffective disorder is related to service. In addition, the Veteran’s reported service events are not credible because they are not consistent with his service records and lack any corroboration. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements in support of his appeal. As noted, the Veteran has not been shown to have expertise or training in the field of psychiatry; thus, he is not considered competent to establish a nexus between his current psychiatric disorder and service. Thus, his lay opinion in such regard is outweighed by the VA medical opinion discussed above. The preponderance of the evidence weighs against a nexus between the Veteran’s current acquired psychiatric disorder and military service. There is no doubt to be resolved. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. D. JOHNSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Vuong, 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.