Citation Nr: 22008026 Decision Date: 02/11/22 Archive Date: 02/11/22 DOCKET NO. 16-37 259 DATE: February 11, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as major depression disorder (MDD), is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's diagnosed MDD had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, diagnosed as MDD, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 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 Marine Corps from October 1985 to July 1987. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). These matters were remanded by the Board in November 2018 and August 2021 for additional development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran contends that his psychiatric disorder is due to abuse he experienced during boot camp in the military. Alternatively, the Veteran contends that he has suffered from some form of depression that was usually self-treated since discharge due to a physical disability that ended his military career. See July 2016 VA Form 9. To establish service connection for a claimed disorder, the following criteria must be met: (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of an 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 current disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also, Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting in a disease or injury that is incurred in or aggravated by active-duty military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as MDD, is warranted. Medical treatment records show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with MDD. See March 2021 VA examination. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran has asserted that his psychiatric disorder is related to service. See March 2016 Notice of Disagreement; July 2016 VA Form 9. Medical treatment records show continuous complaints and treatment of depression and anxiety as well as reports from the Veteran that his psychiatric symptoms are due to abuse he experienced from his drill sergeant during boot camp. See September 2015, March 2016, June 2016, September 2016, and December 2017 VA treatment records,; see also March 2021 VA examination. In an August 2015 VA medical treatment note, the Veteran reported that his sister told him that he seemed to be irritable in a way that he had never previously been before the military. Further, the Veteran's psychiatrist in a November 2015 VA treatment record indicated that the Veteran's current psychiatric disorders may have originated during his active-duty service. The Board acknowledges the negative VA opinion evidence. Critically, however, the examinations are minimally probative as to whether the Veteran's psychiatric disorder had onset in service as they impermissibly fail to address the competent, credible evidence of symptoms in and since service. In this case, the Veteran's statements regarding in-service onset of his psychiatric symptoms are competent and credible as they are consistent with the other evidence of record, including the numerous medical treatment records. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Thus, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as MDD, is granted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304(f); see also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997). Given the grant of direct service connection, the Board need not address secondary service connection, or any other theories for service connection, in this matter. Jarrette A. Marley Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Leigh, Attorney Advisor 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.