Citation Nr: 21026486 Decision Date: 05/03/21 Archive Date: 05/03/21 DOCKET NO. 16-15 398A DATE: May 3, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a psychiatric disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's current psychiatric disability, presently diagnosed as major depressive disorder, was not shown as chronic in service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1116, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1984 to March 1986. This matter is on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a November 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The case has previously been remanded in September 2018 and May 2020 for additional development. Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called "nexus" requirement. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). VA has established certain rules and presumptions for chronic diseases, such as psychoses. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a); Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). With chronic diseases shown as such in service so as to permit a finding of service connection, subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease at any later date, however remote, are service connected, unless attributable to intercurrent causes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). If chronicity in service is not established, a showing of continuity of symptoms after discharge may support the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). In addition, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, chronic diseases are presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifested to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(3), 3.309(a). The record does not establish that the Veteran was diagnosed with a psychosis, during service or within the first year following separation from service. See, 38 C.F.R. § 3.384. On a VA Form 21-526 dated January 2003,, the Veteran indicated that the psychiatric disability he was claiming service connection for was "Bipolar PTSD Anxiety." In one section of the form he indicated that his claimed psychiatric disorders began after service in 2003, while in another part of the form he indicated that they began during service stating "anxiety-stress 84-86." and that the Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has specific criteria which requires: (1) medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of the condition; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed inservice stressor occurred; and, (3) a link established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Lay testimony alone can establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor in certain circumstances, which include: when PTSD is diagnosed during service and the claimed stressor is related to that service, when the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat, when the stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and certain other conditions are met, and when the veteran was a prisoner-of-war and the claimed stressor is related to that prisoner-of-war experience. Id. In other cases, the claimed stressor must be corroborated by credible supporting evidence. Because, one of the psychiatric disabilities claimed by the Veteran was PTSD, and the Veteran did not have service in combat, the RO requested that the Veteran provide a statement of specific in-service stressors for verification. In March 2013 correspondence, the Veteran provided a long and rambling statement which failed provide any specific stressors. Although the he did refer to boot camp and feeling singled out by his drill instructor and other recruits. Service treatment records do not reveal any complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis of any psychiatric disorders during service. Psychiatric clinical evaluation of the Veteran was normal on both entry and separation examination reports. A February 1985 emergency care treatment record indicates that the Veteran was intoxicated and became violent with security when offered courtesy ride from bar. He was uncooperative, yelling, screaming obscenities, and required restraints on a gurney. He spit in a medical corpsman's face and required treatment with Haldol to calm him down and was taken to a holding cell to be transferred back to his ship. The impression was acute alcohol intoxication. Service personnel records, reveal that the Veteran was involved in multiple disciplinary proceedings, Non-Judicial Punishment (NJP), beginning in March 1985, the time of his medically documented alcohol incident, and continuing until he was subsequently separated from service. Post-service medical records dating from 2003 to the present have been obtained and include both private and VA medical treatment records showing treatment for and diagnosis of various psychiatric disorders. The earliest documented treatment was in September 2003, when he was hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. At this time he reported having been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder at age 20, but he did not report any other diagnosis, treatment or psychiatric history. VA medial records show that he sought treatment for alcohol addiction in December 2005. The Veteran was hospitalized in December 2014 with a diagnosis of major depression with psychotic features. In September 2019, a VA Compensation and Pension examination of the Veteran was conducted. A full examination, which included review of the evidence of record, including the Veteran's service treatment records, service personnel records, and other medical evidence. The examiner also considered the Veteran's reports of difficultly with his drill instructor during boot camp. The diagnosis was recurrent major depressive disorder. The examiner specifically indicated that the Veteran did not warrant a diagnosis of PTSD. The examiner's medical opinion was that the Veteran's psychiatric disorder clearly and unmistakably did not exist prior to service and that the Veteran's current psychiatric disorder was not less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. A subsequent addendum opinion was provided in June 2020. This opinion provided more specific rationale and discussion of the Veteran's reported history of his claimed difficulties during service including during basic training but again indicated that the Veteran's claimed psychiatric disorder was not incurred in or caused by service. The Veteran has a current psychiatric disability which is presently diagnosed as major depressive disorder and has also been diagnosed as bi-polar disorder. Despite his assertions, there is no diagnosis of PTSD. The earliest evidence of a diagnosed psychiatric disability is in 2003, over a decade and a half after the Veteran separated from service. There is no evidence of a psychiatric disorder during service, and psychiatric evaluation on separation examination was normal. The medical opinions of record indicate that the Veteran's psychiatric disorder is not related to or caused by service. With no evidence of a psychiatric disorder during service, no evidence of a psychosis withing a year of service, and no evidence linking the Veteran's current psychiatric disorder to service, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and service connection is denied. MARJORIE A. AUER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Havelka, 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.