Citation Nr: 21022891 Decision Date: 04/19/21 Archive Date: 04/19/21 DOCKET NO. 15-34 094 DATE: April 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disability that was incurred in or caused by active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active military service from February 1980 to July 1982. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of that hearing is of record in the claims file. This case was previously before the Board in January 2020, at which time the issues currently before the Board were remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for appellate review. The Board notes that in March 2021, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, opting to have his claim on appeal reviewed under the modernized review system. Such an election would effectively withdraw the Veteran’s appeal from the legacy review system, and the case would continue to be processed pursuant to the modernized review system. While Veteran’s are legally allowed to elect for post- supplemental statement of the case review under the modernized review system, the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) will only proceed with post- supplemental statement of the case election if all forms are properly executed. Specifically, VBA requires that the appropriate box in Part III of the VA Form 20-0995 be checked, identifying opt-in from SOC/SSOC. In the present case, the Veteran did not check the box indicating opt-in from SOC/SSOC on his March 2021 VA Form 20-0995. As such, his election is invalid and would not be accepted by VBA, and his case will remain in the legacy review system. Service Connection – Acquired Psychiatric Disorder The Veteran asserts that he has an acquired psychiatric disability due to service. Specifically, he asserts that he developed PTSD as a result of coming in contact with the bodies of Marines that had been burned to death in a helicopter accident. A review a of the service records shows that the Veteran had active service at Fort Sam Houston, located in San Antonio, Texas. Further, the Veteran’s statements regarding his exposure to deceased Veteran’s while working as a medical supply specialist are not inconsistent with the facts and circumstances of his service. Therefore, the Board concedes the Veteran’s stressor. The Veteran’s service treatment records are silent for a diagnosis of, treatment for, or complaints of psychiatric disabilities while in service. Further, the Veteran denied psychiatric issues at his June 1982 separation examination and was found psychiatrically normal upon mental status examination at that time. However, the Veteran has reported that he has had mental health struggles as a result of events in active service, and that his symptoms have continued since that time. Further, the Veteran is competent to report when he experienced mental health difficulties and that they have continued since service. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect. Post-service evidence of record shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and catatonic features, and dementia in February 2008, depression in May 2012, and PTSD in October 2018. Of record is a May2020 letter from the Veteran’s private treatment provider, Dr. J.S. In that letter, Dr. J.S. opined that the Veteran’s PTSD and schizophrenia were more likely than not related to trauma experienced while in active service. Dr. J.S. indicated a review of the records and the Veteran’s medical history, and discussed the Veteran’s contentions with detail. The Board finds that the May 2020 medical opinion is adequate because the examiner thoroughly discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The Board acknowledges that there are multiple VA medical opinions of record against the claim. However, those opinions are not adequate for adjudication purposes as they failed to appropriate consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. As the opinions are not adequately supported, they are of little probative value and will not be discussed further in this decision. (Continued on the next page)   On the above, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim is at least in equipoise and the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in the Veteran’s favor. Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §5107 (b) (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umez-Eronini, 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.