Citation Nr: 22005681 Decision Date: 02/02/22 Archive Date: 02/02/22 DOCKET NO. 20-00 216 DATE: February 2, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include bipolar disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, her bipolar disorder is etiologically related to her active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include bipolar disorder, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 2005 to March 2005 and from July 2007 to September 2007. In January 2022, the Veteran testified before the undersigned at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned. The transcript from the hearing has not yet been associated with the file, as the case is being granted under the Board's "One Touch" program. The hearing transcript will still be processed and associated with the claims file in the ordinary course of business. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include bipolar disorder Initially, the Veteran filed a VA form 21-526EZ disability claim in March 2018 alleging bipolar disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Given that post-service treatment records show multiple psychiatric disorders, including bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder, have been diagnosed, the Board has recharacterized the reopened claim of service connection for PTSD to include all psychiatric disorders. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (holding that claims for service connection for PTSD also encompass claims for service connection for all psychiatric disabilities afflicting a Veteran based on a review of the medical evidence). The Board notes that the Veteran first enlisted in Alabama National Guard in 2002 and was separated due to failure to adapt. The Veteran was subsequently granted two waivers and enlisted in United States Army in 2005 and again in 2007 but was again separated after failing to complete basic training. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that began during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Every veteran shall be taken to have been in sound condition when examined, accepted, and enrolled for service, except as to defects, infirmities, or disorders noted at the time of the examination, acceptance, and enrollment, or where clear and unmistakable evidence demonstrates that the injury or disease existed before acceptance and enrollment and was not aggravated by such service. 38 U.S.C. § 1111; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (b). Therefore, where there is evidence showing that a disorder manifested or was incurred in service, and this disorder is not noted on the veteran's entrance examination report, this presumption of soundness operates to shield the veteran from any finding that the unnoted disease or injury pre-existed service. See Gilbert v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 48 (2012); Bagby v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 225, 227 (1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (b). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Board must resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 ; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the evidence must preponderate against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996). Turning to the first element of service connection, the existence of a present disability, the Board notes that the Veteran has been diagnosed with an acquired psychiatric disability consisting of bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder. See April 2018 VA psychiatric examination. The Board also notes that the Veteran has been in receipt of separate Social Security Administration benefits for a mental health disorder. The Veteran's service treatment records from Moncrief Army Medical Center note that the Veteran had an assessment of depression and adjustment disorder in August 2007. With evidence of a current disability and an in-service event or injury, the remaining element required to establish service connection is a nexus between the current disability and the in-service event or injury. The Veteran underwent a VA psychiatric examination in April 2018. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and alcohol use disorder. The examiner noted that the veteran's extreme mood swings, anger, irritability, and failure to accept feedback and direction would significantly interfere with her social and occupational functioning. These behaviors were noted in her military service and would likely reoccur in a structured setting. The examiner found that the Veteran had functional limitations of regulating mood, accepting directions and following guidelines. In a June 2018 medical opinion, the April 2018 examiner opined that it was more likely than not that the Veteran's condition was etiologically related to service. Moreover, the Veteran is competent and credible to report the observable symptoms of her conditions. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469. A veteran's lay statements may be sufficient evidence in any claim for service connection. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a) ("Each disabling condition shown by a veteran's service records, or for which he seeks a service connection[,] must be considered on the basis of... all pertinent medical and lay evidence."); 38 U.S.C. § 154 (a) (2017) (requiring VA to include in its service connection regulations that due consideration be given to "all pertinent medical and lay evidence"). Here, the Board finds that the Veteran has consistently and credibly asserted, to include testimony before the undersigned, that she had symptoms of her acquired psychiatric disability during service and that symptoms have continued and worsened since that time. The Veteran's statements regarding onset are consistent with the circumstances of her service and with the record. Therefore, the Board finds her credible in this regard. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's current acquired psychiatric condition arose in service. (Continued on the next page) Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include bipolar disorder, is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014) ("By requiring only an 'approximate balance of positive and negative evidence'..., the nation, 'in recognition of our debt to our veterans,' has 'taken upon itself the risk of error' in awarding... benefits"). Ray Slabbekorn Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board V. Woehlke 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.