Citation Nr: 21030461 Decision Date: 05/19/21 Archive Date: 05/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-23 390 DATE: May 19, 2021 ORDER The claim for service connection for schizoaffective disorder is reopened. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as schizoaffective disorder, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's claims for service connection for schizoaffective disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) were previously denied by a September 2013 rating decision. 2. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement, initiating an appeal, in September 2013, but did not file a substantive appeal following an April 2014 statement of the case. 3. Additional evidence received since the September 2013 rating decision is not cumulative or redundant of the evidence of record at the time of that decision, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claims for service connection for schizoaffective disorder, and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 4. The evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as schizoaffective disorder, is related to service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The September 2013 rating decision denying service connection for schizoaffective disorder and PTSD is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103. 2. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the Veteran's claim for service connection for schizoaffective disorder. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for schizoaffective disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 1975 to August 1976. This matter is on appeal from a November 2015 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran's claim related to a psychiatric disability as due to military sexual trauma has been processed as separate claims for schizoaffective disorder and PTSD, and the current claim on appeal has been processed as a single claim for service connection for PTSD. However, the Veteran filed his notice of disagreement, mentioning PTSD while asserting that his psychiatric disability was due to in-service sexual trauma. As will be discussed further below, the record reflects an acquired psychiatric disorder diagnosed as schizoaffective disorder, which the Veteran appears to believe is PTSD. Therefore, the Board has recharacterized the claim to schizoaffective disorder. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). New and Material Evidence In September 2013, the RO denied the Veteran's claims of service connection for schizoaffective disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement, initiating an appeal, in September 2013, but did not file a substantive appeal following an April 2014 statement of the case. Therefore, the decision became final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103. Generally, a claim which has been denied may not thereafter be reopened and allowed based on the same record. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105. However, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5108, if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the VA Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim. The September 2013 rating decision denied the claim because the Veteran had no current diagnosis of PTSD and because his schizoaffective disorder and depression was not related to service. As will be discussed in greater detail below, the Veteran was provided with a VA examination in October 2015 in which the examiner noted a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and opined that the condition was caused by military sexual trauma. This evidence is new, pertains to the grounds of the prior denial, and raises the possibility of substantiating the Veteran's contention that he is entitled to service connection. The Board therefore finds that this evidence is new and material. The Veteran's claim is reopened. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156. Service Connection The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder as due to military sexual trauma. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish service connection, the Veteran must show: (1) a current disability, (2) a disease, injury, or event in service, and (3) a causal link (nexus) between the claimed disability and the disease, injury, or event in service and the present disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Competent lay evidence is any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. For example, lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). This may include some medical matters, such as describing observable symptoms or relating a contemporaneous medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When all of the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Id. In this case, the Veteran was provided with a VA examination in October 2015 in which the examiner noted a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder, depressed, persistent, and severe, in conformance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5). Thus, the first element of Shedden is satisfied. See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a). Further, the Veteran has submitted lay statements which describe sexual harassment and assault in service. Military personnel records do not contemporaneously document these incidents. However, the Board finds no reason to doubt the credibility or sincerity of the in-service stressors alleged by the Veteran. Thus, the second element of Shedden is satisfied, as well. See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). During the October 2015 VA examination, clinical psychologist Dr. M.T. opined that the Veteran's schizoaffective disorder is caused by or the result of service and is the "direct result of experiencing a military sexual trauma while in active duty." He noted that before the stressors, the Veteran had no history of schizoaffective symptoms or other mental health problems and has had no other exposure to a traumatic event that could cause his symptoms. He stated that it is "not unusual for traumatic events to result in a mental health condition other than PTSD" and that "this is the case for this Veteran." The examination report also reflects extensive and thorough discussion of the Veteran's relevant background and medical history. The examiner also discussed the details of the in-service stressors and the symptoms that manifested afterwards. As this rationale is well-reasoned and reflects thorough consideration of the nature and history of the Veteran's disability, the Board assigns a high degree of probative value to this opinion. The record contains no evidence which otherwise indicates that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is not related to service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran's schizoaffective disorder is related to service. Thus, having resolved all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board concludes that service connection is warranted, and the claim is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. J. B. FREEMAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. H. White, 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.