Citation Nr: 22015380 Decision Date: 03/17/22 Archive Date: 03/17/22 DOCKET NO. 17-28 179 DATE: March 17, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for neurosis, claimed as irritability, difficulty concentrating, and forgetfulness, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a separate diagnosis of neurosis at any time during, or approximate to, the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for neurosis, claimed as irritability, difficulty concentrating, and forgetfulness, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1991 to May 1995. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 Rating Decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Fort Harrison, Montana. This claim most recently was remanded by the Board in a September 2021 Decision. There, the Board determined that, based on medical evidence obtained through prior remands, the Veteran's symptoms were associated with a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Thus, the Board ordered development to determine whether that diagnosis and its associated symptoms could be considered a medically unexplained, chronic, multi-symptom illness (MUCMI), as the Veteran contends it is. Furthermore, the Board instructed that an opinion be obtained to determine whether the adjustment disorder is secondary to any of the Veteran's service-connected conditions. In November 2021, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) provided the Veteran with an updated examination and obtained a medical opinion, permitting the Board to proceed with adjudication of this claim. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). For disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. To establish service connection, there must exist medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Where the evidence does not support a finding of current disability upon which to predicate a grant of service connection, there can be no valid claim for that benefit. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). A February 2019 Rating Decision granted the Veteran service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) effective December 2014. The premise for the Board's most recent remand was a December 2019 VA examination that noted that the Veteran's psychiatric condition was better characterized as the adjustment disorder (noted above) and that he did not meet the criteria for PTSD. The November 2021 examiner, however, noted that the Veteran did have an appropriate diagnosis of PTSD with persistent depressive disorder. Under the PTSD diagnosis, that examiner noted that the "claimed neurosis is subsumed by the [service-connected] PTSD and does not warrant a separate diagnosis." Indeed, the noted symptoms at the time of examination were depressed mood; anxiety; suspiciousness; near continuous panic attacks; chronic sleep impairment; mild memory loss; flattened effect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, such as work and a work-like setting; impaired impulse control; and intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living. Because the above-noted symptoms wholly incorporate the Veteran's alleged neurosis with symptoms of irritability, difficulty concentrating, and forgetfulness, he does not have a separately diagnosed disability. Thus, the first element in a claim for service connection has not been establish, and the Board need go no further with its analysis. See Romanowsky, 26 Vet. App. at 293; Brammer, 3 Vet. App. at 225; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). (SIGNATURE ON NEXT PAGE) JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Trevor T. Bernard, 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.