Citation Nr: 21023636 Decision Date: 04/21/21 Archive Date: 04/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-17 771 DATE: April 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The most probative evidence does not reach the level of equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder had its onset during or is etiologically related to military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from November 1965 to June 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Veteran and his sister testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2019. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. The Board previously remanded this matter in October 2019. The agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) was asked to undertake appropriate development to assess the Veteran’s reported stressors relevant to an acquired psychiatric disorder. The AOJ was also asked to schedule a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder. On remand, the AOJ sent letters to the Veteran in November 2019 and January 2020, asking for more information to corroborate his reported stressors. After the second letter was sent, a VA employee called the Veteran and asked if he had received the letters. The Veteran answered that he had received the letters and read them with “semi-understanding”. He indicated that he is a very apprehensive person, and might need assistance completing the forms. The VA employee stated that he would resend the letters, and asked the Veteran if he had any questions. The Veteran stated that he did not have any questions at that point, but would talk to his sister if he needed some help. The AOJ sent additional copies of the letters in January 2020, March 2020, and April 2020. The Veteran did not respond to the letters or otherwise provide the requested information. In July 2020, the AOJ issued a formal finding of inability to corroborate the Veteran’s reported stressors. The record reflects that VA attempted to send the Veteran’s information to the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) to corroborate his reported stressors. The JSRRC responded that they were unable to complete the request because the record did not reflect essential information necessary for a search, including the Veteran’s unit designation down to the squadron level and the most specific dates of the incidents. The AOJ also attempted to schedule a VA examination. However, the record shows that the examination was cancelled after the contractor was unable to contact the Veteran. The AOJ issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case in December 2020, which advised the Veteran that VA would attempt to reschedule the examination if he contacted VA and expressed a willingness to attend an appointment. To date, neither the Veteran nor his representative has indicated that the Veteran is able or willing to attend a VA examination. After reviewing the record, the Board finds that the AOJ has substantially complied with the prior remand directives. The Veteran was repeatedly asked to provide necessary information relating to his asserted stressor events during military service. However, he did not respond to the AOJ’s requests for information. Moreover, the JSRRC determined that there was an insufficient basis on which to conduct a search for corroboration of the Veteran’s stressors. The Board is aware that the Veteran did not cooperate with the VA examination process or evince a willingness to attend an examination in the future. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a). VA’s duty to assist is not a one-way street; if the Veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances in which his own actions are essential in obtaining the putative evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Accordingly, the Board finds that the matter is ready for a decision on the merits. Legal Criteria – Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred coincident with or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing direct service connection generally requires competent evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder The Board finds that the most probative evidence does not reach the level of equipoise in the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Therefore, the claim may not be granted. The record reflects a current diagnosis of depression. See CAPRI, August 2019. Thus, the questions for the Board are (1) whether there exists an event, injury, or disease during military service relevant to an acquired psychiatric disorder, and (2) whether there is a causal nexus between the occurrence in service and the current acquired psychiatric disorder. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Regarding the element of a nexus, the Board notes that the Veteran did not participate in a VA examination that would have addressed this element of service connection. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(a) (“when a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record.”). The Board has reviewed VA medical records. However, they do not show evidence of a medical opinion by a competent professional linking the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder to military service. The Board notes that VA medical records evince reports of several other potential stressors, including relationships, financial difficulties, and poor health of family members, that do not reflect a connection to military service. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements. However, the ability to link an acquired psychiatric disorder to military service requires complex medical knowledge of the internal workings of the brain and psychological interactions with external stimuli that is beyond the capacity of a lay person. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, a nexus may not be established on the Veteran’s lay testimony alone. Moreover, to the extent that the Veteran reported having ongoing psychiatric symptoms beginning in service, the Board notes that he explicitly denied psychiatric symptoms, including “nervous trouble of any sort”, “depression or excessive worry”, and “frequent trouble sleeping”, in his separation report of medical history in February 1969. His separation examination found a normal psychiatric system, and the Veteran described his state of health as “excellent.” The examining clinician noted that the Veteran denied “all other significant medical and surgical history.” Thus, the most probative evidence does not suggest continuity of psychiatric symptoms since military service. In sum, as no competent evidence has linked the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder to military service, the element of a nexus is not supported by the record. Therefore, the claim for service connection is must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) (“[A] claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits....”); Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (noting that the benefit of the doubt standard in section 5107(b) is not applicable based on pure speculation or remote possibility); Skoczen v. Shinseki, 564 F.3d 1319, 1323-29 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (recognizing that “[w]hether submitted by the claimant or VA... the evidence must rise to the requisite level set forth in section 5107(b),” requiring an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination). ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Reed, 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.