Citation Nr: 21025096 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 18-24 745 DATE: April 27, 2021 ORDER The application to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is granted. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include social anxiety disorder with recurrent major depressive disorder with a history of psychotic features, is granted. VETERAN’S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for his acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran reported that during basic training, he had his first psychotic break and started hearing voices and hallucinating. See May 2015 Statement in Support of Claim. Additionally, the Veteran explained that he was nervous in the military and would cry until he passed out, which led to his August 1978 hospitalization. See July 2016 Statement in Support of Claim. Ultimately, the Veteran was admitted to a hospital because he appeared to be unstable, incompetent, and depressed. See August 1978 Service Treatment Record. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A March 1996 Board decision denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran did not appeal the March 1996 decision to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). Evidence received since the March 1996 Board decision relates to prior unestablished facts. 2. The Veteran's current acquired psychiatric disorder, to include social anxiety disorder with recurrent major depressive disorder with a history of psychotic features, had its clinical onset during his active duty service. See December 2020 VA Medical Opinion. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The March 1996 Board decision is final; new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 20.1103. 2. The criteria for service connection for the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1978 to September 1978. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran’s Appeal (Board) on appeal from a November 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran selected a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge on his May 2018 VA Form 9. In January 2020, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. 1. The application to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder. As indicated above in the Conclusion of Law section, the Board finds that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Accordingly, to this extent, the Board grants the Veteran's appeal. In support of this determination, the Board first notes that, in the March 1996 Board decision, the Board denied the claim for service connection for a psychophysiological respiratory disorder (nervousness with anxiety and panic attack). In this decision, the Board concluded that the Veteran was treated for nervousness and chest pain syndrome, but no chronic disability related to the Veteran’s service was shown. The Veteran did not appeal this decision to CAVC. The March 1996 Board decision is final. See; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(b), 20.1100.; see also Bond v. Shinseki, 659 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Generally, to reopen a previously denied, final claim, a claimant must present new and material evidence. See 38 U.S.C. § 5108. Evidence is "new" if it was not previously submitted to agency decision makers. Evidence is "material" if, when viewed by itself or with other evidence previously of record, it relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence previously of record and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a). For the purpose of establishing whether new and material evidence has been received, the credibility of the evidence, but not its weight, is to be presumed. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510, 513 (1992). Since the March 1996 Board decision, VA has received private treatment records from Overton Brooks VA Medical Center, VA treatment records dated through February 2013, and testimony from the Veteran. This evidence is "new" as it consists of materials not previously submitted to agency decision makers. It is also "material" as it addresses the reasons for the prior denial. Specifically, the December 2020 medical opinion clarifies the diagnosis of the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder and states that it had its clinical onset during service. See December 2020 VA Medical Opinion. This evidence addresses the previously unestablished facts of a current disability and nexus to service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the application to reopen the previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder must be granted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, to include social anxiety disorder with recurrent major depressive disorder with a history of psychotic features, is granted. Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of 1) a current disability, 2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and 3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). The Veteran has been diagnosed with social anxiety disorder with recurrent major depressive disorder with a history of psychotic features. See December 2020 Medical Opinion. He contends that his acquired psychiatric disability had its onset in service. See May 2015 and July 2016 Statements in Support of Claim. The Veteran was not provided a VA examination, but submitted a December 2020 medical opinion from his treating psychiatrist at Overton Brooks VA Medical Center, where he receives mental health treatment. The Veteran also submitted letters from his VA treatment providers that diagnosed him with posttraumatic stress disorder and schizoaffective disorder with depressive mood. See November 2019 VA Medical Letter. However, the December 2020 psychologist clarified the Veteran’s diagnosis as social anxiety disorder with recurrent major depressive disorder with a history of psychotic features and opined that it began in service. See December 2020 VA Medical Opinion. The December 2020 psychologist explained that she reviewed the Veteran’s August 1978 discharge summary report, mental health records from 2001 to 2014, and May 2008 psychological testing to reach this diagnosis. Id. Further, the psychologist opined that the Veteran had a pre-disposition to the develop this disorder prior to entering the military; however, the symptoms were first triggered as a direct result of the fear he felt after enduring a period of bullying, ridicule, and humiliation by officers and peers during training. Id. The psychologist explained that his response to these experiences was so severe that he required hospitalization in 1978. Id. The opinion of the December 2020 psychologist is competent, credible, and entitled to significant weight. As the record otherwise lacks evidence contradicting the favorable opinion, the Board finds that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, to include social anxiety disorder with recurrent major depressive disorder with a history of psychotic features, had its clinical onset during his active duty service. Accordingly, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include social anxiety disorder with recurrent major depressive disorder with a history of psychotic features, is warranted. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S.Foster, 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.