Citation Nr: 21030217 Decision Date: 05/18/21 Archive Date: 05/18/21 DOCKET NO. 16-07 947 DATE: May 18, 2021 ORDER Service connection for schizoaffective disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, his schizoaffective disorder had its onset during active duty for training. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1980 to March 1983. The Veteran then served in the National Guard on active duty for training in August 1984. This matter initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) in July 2015. The RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) in January 2016. The Veteran filed a VA Form 9 in February 2016. The VA issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) in July 2017. The Board remanded the claim in September 2018. An SSOC was issued in October 2019. The Board remanded the claim again in February 2020. In March 2020 the RO issued an SSOC. The Board then remanded the claim again in November 2020. This matter is now properly before the Board. Service Connection Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that an injury or disease resulting in a disability was incurred in the line of duty during active military service or, if an injury or disease pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F. 3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995). 1. Acquired psychiatric disorder The Veteran contends that his acquired psychiatric disorder is due to service. The Veteran was on ACDUTRA, active duty training, in 1984 with the National Guard. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24); see also Biggins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 474 (1991). On August 7, 1984 the Veteran was admitted into Walter Reed Medical Center. Medical records from this time period indicate that the Veteran was on active duty for training and that the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was considered and could not be ruled out. Medical evidence associated with the claims file shows that the Veteran had psychiatric symptoms since service. In December 2015, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with schizoaffective disorder. The VA examiner did note that the Veteran was admitted to Walter Reed Hospital in 1984. The December 2015 examiner noted that the Veteran said he began hearing auditory hallucinations when he was at his first duty station in Texas. The examiner noted that the Veteran endorsed having paranoid delusions involving people watching him while he was in high school. The examiner noted that his medical records document a consistent reported history of paranoid delusions. The examiner concluded that it was less likely than not that his psychiatric disorder was related to service because the Veteran reported that his symptoms began in high school. However, in his substantive appeal, the Veteran stated that he did not make this assertion to the examiner. Therefore, the Board finds that the VA opinion is not probative in regards to etiology as it is based on an inaccurate factual premise. Here, the service treatment records from the Veteran's active duty service reveal that he was found sound upon entry to service. Thus, what remains in this claim, without the VA opinion, is the ACDUTRA record documenting psychiatric symptoms and medical records since service documenting psychiatric symptoms. After resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for schizoaffective disorder is warranted. S. Sorathia Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board H. Hailu, 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.