Citation Nr: 22017148 Decision Date: 03/24/22 Archive Date: 03/24/22 DOCKET NO. 17-24 393 DATE: March 24, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for unspecified bipolar disorder and related disorders is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that unspecified bipolar disorder and related disorders began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for unspecified bipolar disorder and related disorders are not 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 from August 1984 to October 1984. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a June 2014 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In his May 2017 substantive appeal, the Veteran requested video hearing at the Board. In August 2021, the Veteran submitted correspondence requesting a decision be made based on the evidence in file. Thus, in February 2021, the Board sent the Veteran and his representative a letter requesting that he clarify whether he wanted to proceed with or without a hearing. Neither the Veteran nor his representative replied to this letter within the 30 days allotted; the hearing request is considered withdrawn, and the claim is ready for adjudication. Entitlement to service connection for unspecified bipolar disorder and related disorders The Veteran claims his bipolar disorder began in service with symptoms such as disturbed sleep, loneliness, and bed wetting. He further contends that he was ultimately discharged due to these symptoms and was formally diagnosed with bipolar disorder four years after service. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of unspecified bipolar and related disorders, and evidence shows that he was diagnosed with adjustment reaction in service in October 1984, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of unspecified bipolar and related disorders began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Private treatment records in May 1986 show the Veteran reported a 15-year history of cyclic depression and was diagnosed with depressive reaction. In July 2000 he was diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Further, in October 2010 he was diagnosed with unspecified bipolar disorder. At that visit, he reported he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder by his primary care provider in the 1990's. A November 2012 private treatment record also shows a diagnosis of recurrent major depressive disorder. The Veteran was first afforded a VA examination in February 2014. At that examination the Veteran reported that the onset of his depressive symptoms began in 1984 and in 1986. He also reported childhood depression. This examiner declined to provide an opinion regarding the etiology of his bipolar disorder. Correspondence dated in June 2014 from Ms. H.M. reflects her opinion that the Veteran's bipolar disorder was not diagnosed until 1997, and thus was too far removed from military service to be related to military service. She explained that the symptoms of depression and agitation noted in October 1984 service treatment records were not the first symptoms of unspecified bipolar disorder, and that the October 1984 exam showed an adjustment reaction which was not related to the unspecified bipolar disorder. However, the Board gives this opinion no probative weight as it is unclear whether Ms. H.M. is competent to give this opinion or whether she reviewed any records prior to so opining. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-9 (2000); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). At the November 2016 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he first had psychiatric issues as a child, and in service he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty adjusting to service. He further reported that he first went on medications in the late 1980s and has been on and off medications and counseling since. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with unspecified bipolar and related disorder, likely bipolar type II disorder, and opined against relation to service. The examiner explained that bipolar disorder is not caused by or a result of military service as this disorder is not a result of environmental factors. Therefore, it is less likely than not that the depression noted in the service caused the veteran's current diagnosis of Unspecified Bipolar and Related Disorder. The adjustment reaction and depression in the service was more likely than not related to the veteran's inability to handle military duties. This resolved upon discharge from the service as the stressors were no longer present. Onset of the bipolar disorder per the Veteran, was in the late 1980s when he first started medications and treatment and diagnosed with a "chemical imbalance" which was later determined to be bipolar disorder. Here, the Board finds the November 2016 examiner's opinion is probative because it is based on an accurate medical history and provides an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez, 22 Vet. App. at 304. The Veteran believes his bipolar disorder began in service. While the Veteran is competent to report having experienced symptoms of disturbed sleep, loneliness, and bed wetting, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that these symptoms were manifestations of unspecified bipolar and related disorders. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical knowledge. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran in this case because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the November 2016 VA examination. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). J. LEE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K.L. Blevins, 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.