Citation Nr: 24005461 Decision Date: 02/02/24 Archive Date: 02/02/24 DOCKET NO. 20-17 983 DATE: February 2, 2024 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that a psychiatric disability, claimed as PTSD, began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a psychiatric disability, claimed as PTSD, 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 in the United States Army from May 1967 to February 1970. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) on appeal from an October 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, claimed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) The Veteran is seeking service connection for a psychiatric disorder. He contends that his claimed psychiatric disorder is due to incident during his service in Korea, in which the Veteran got lost near the DMZ. 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 question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD, and evidence shows that the Veteran reported dealing with anxiety and depression on his entrance examination, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's diagnosis of PTSD began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran's service treatment record is absent for complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for a psychiatric disorder during his active service. The Veteran, however, did note that he experienced "depression or excessive worry," and "nervous trouble of any sort" on the report of his medical history in connection with his entrance examination. A July 1971 post-service treatment record details that the Veteran was treated for anxiety and depression due to family problems. The Veteran's Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits reveal that the Veteran was awarded SSA benefits for substance addition and an affective disorder. A medical reported associated with the SSA records diagnosed the Veteran with polysubstance dependence in remission and a personality disorder. The Veteran's VA treatment records are absent for any diagnosis, or any ongoing treatment related to any psychiatric disorder. The Veteran submitted an April 2019 private medical opinion authored by MLC, MD, FACP. Dr. MLC diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD after a two-hour diagnostic assessment. The Board previously found this opinion to be inadequate and remanded the claim to afford the Veteran an opportunity for a VA examination. Since the time of the Veteran's claim, several attempts were made to schedule the Veteran for an examination to obtain an etiology opinion regarding his claimed psychiatric disability. In October 2017 the Veteran was scheduled for an examination that was cancelled at his request. In the March 2020 Form 9, the Veteran, through his representative indicated that he is unable to attend examinations because he is located in the Philippines. In June 2020 and August 2020 the Veteran's representative filed a motion to allow the Veteran to be located and health status confirmed. The Board notes the claims file shows a series of missed and cancelled examination by the Veteran. Again, in November 2023, the scheduled examination was noted as being cancelled at the Veteran's request. There is no notice of regarding the reason for the cancellation and no requests by the Veteran to be rescheduled for a new examination. Therefore, the claim must be adjudicated based on the evidence of record. 38?C.F.R. §?3.655. Unfortunately, the Board finds that the evidence of record does not support a claim of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability.? The Veteran should understand that VA's duty to assist is not a?one-way street?and that the Veteran must cooperate in obtaining the evidence necessary to adjudicate his claim, including by attending VA?examinations.? Wood v. Derwinski,?1?Vet. App.?190 (1991);?38?C.F.R. §§?3.159(c), 3.655(b).? Because the Veteran did not attend scheduled examination that would have allowed VA to obtain an etiology opinion regarding the claimed psychiatric disability, there is no competent etiology opinion of record that attributes the claimed psychiatric disability to service or any event, injury, or disease during service.? While the Veteran believes he has a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disability that is related to active service, he is not competent to provide a etiology opinion on the matter.? The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing.? Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).? The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has the medical training or expertise to provide competent medical opinions.? To the extent that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, the Board finds that the evidence still does not show that it is at least as likely as not that any claimed psychiatric disability is related to service.? Accordingly, the Board finds that the persuasive weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a psychiatric disability that began during active service or is otherwise related to an event, injury, disease, or exposure during service. The evidence does not contain competent evidence to establish that it is at least as likely as not that a psychiatric disability is related to service.? The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran.? Therefore, the claim must be denied.? S. F. Keane Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Cross, 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.