Citation Nr: 21040765 Decision Date: 07/06/21 Archive Date: 07/06/21 DOCKET NO. 15-08 255 DATE: July 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as major depressive disorder (MDD), is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's MDD had its onset during active service; the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as MDD, are met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 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 1997 to March 2001. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2012 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2017, the Veteran and his father provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The Board has recharacterized the Veteran's PTSD claim as reflected on the title page, to ensure consideration of all diagnoses of record. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as MDD, is granted. The Veteran maintains that his psychiatric disorder was incurred during service due to several stressful incidents including: being in daily fear of his Sergeant during combat training in Germany in 1997/1998; visiting an exhumation/gravesite in Bosnia in June/July 1998; the Veteran and a fellow soldier pointing their guns at children after being taunted in Bosnia in July/August 1998; witnessing the aftermath of his roommate being stabbed in Germany in October 1998; almost shooting a child after the child pointed a realistic looking toy gun at the Veteran in Bosnia between February and August 2000; constant fear of landmines in Bosnia; witnessing a man injure himself on a ski slope in Germany where the ski punctured through his calf; and observing multiple casualties in Bosnia. See January 2011 VA Forms 21-0781 and October 2017 Board Hearing Transcript at 4-24. He asserts that since that time he has experienced depression and anxiety. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from injury or disease incurred during active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, to establish service connection the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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 in or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Establishing service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); see also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997). Effective August 4, 2014, VA amended the portion of the Rating Schedule dealing with mental disorders to replace outdated references to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), with references to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). See 79 Fed. Reg. 149, 45094 (August 4, 2014). Because the appeal was first certified to the Board in July 2015, the DSM-5 applies. In order to be considered for service connection, a claimant must first have a current disability. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time he files his claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Here, the first element of service connection for PTSD is not met, as the preponderance of the competent evidence of record does not reveal a current PTSD diagnosis under the applicable DSM-5 during the pendency of the appeal. See January 2019 VA examination report; see also July 2018 VA treatment record; see also February 2012 VA examination report (indicating no DSM-IV diagnosis of PTSD). To the extent the Veteran asserts he has a current PTSD diagnosis, his opinion is not competent, since as a lay person he is not competent to determine whether the diagnostic criteria for diagnosis of a particular psychiatric disorder are met. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002). Thus, for reasons outlined above, element one is not met, and the PTSD claim fails on this basis alone. In this regard, in an October 2020 statement, the Veteran indicated that if the Board could not grant service connection for PTSD, awarding service connection for anxiety or depression would satisfy his claim, and the Board's decision herein is favorable in this regard. Thus, the remaining analysis below will only address his diagnosed MDD. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of MDD, severe with anxious distress. See January 2019 VA examination report. In this regard, the January 2019 examiner noted that his history of anxiety and depression in his VA treatment records are consistent with a diagnosis of MDD, severe with anxious distress. Id. Thus, element one is met for MDD. As to the second element, in-service incurrence of a disease or injury, the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for complaints, diagnoses, or treatment of a mental health condition. However, the Board finds the Veteran's statements that he began experiencing psychiatric symptomatology during service following a series of traumatic events and that they have continued since that time to be competent and credible and consistent with the circumstances of his service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); see also January 2012 VA treatment record (noting depression symptoms for "many years"); May 2009 VA treatment record (noting first suicide attempt in 2001); October 2005 VA treatment record (noting depression since discharge from Army in 2001). These findings, along with the January 2019 VA examiner's opinion discussed below, also establish element two for MDD. Regarding element three, nexus, a January 2019 VA examiner, after a thorough review of the claims file and in-person examination/interview with the Veteran, opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's MDD was incurred in or caused by in-service events. In support of her opinion, she noted that the Veteran was found fit for duty prior to deploying to Bosnia the second time and that this finding indicates his mental health symptoms occurred during this deployment. To this end, she stated that after returning he began experiencing psychological issues, for which he turned to substance use to self-medicate. Furthermore, she noted that his experiences during his (second) deployment to Bosnia resulted in a change in his psychological functioning based on the fact that, prior to this, he was found fit for duty to deploy. The Board finds that this opinion, combined with the Veteran's competent statements regarding his symptoms during service, to include as documented in more contemporaneous post-service treatment records, supports that his MDD had its onset during service. Critically, there is no competent opinion to the contrary regarding the etiology of diagnosed MDD. Thus, element three is also established, and service connection is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. S. BUSH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Asante, Ruby 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.