Citation Nr: A25035709 Decision Date: 04/17/25 Archive Date: 04/17/25 DOCKET NO. 210817-179910 DATE: April 17, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's major depressive disorder is at least as likely as not related to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for major depressive disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from February 1998 to February 2002. The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review. The AMA became effective on February 19, 2019, and applies to all initial decisions issued after this date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400 (a)(1). The initial decision in this case was issued in January 2021; thus, this decision has been written consistent with the new AMA framework. The Veteran in August 2021 submitted a Board Appeal Notice of Disagreement (VA Form 10182) following an January 2021, rating decision. The Veteran in his August 2021 appeal chose the "Hearing Lane." As explained in the Form 10182, per the "Hearing Lane," the review is based on evidence of record at the time of January 2021, rating decision and submitted within a 90-day window following the Veteran's April 2025 hearing. The Veteran was provided a hearing in April 2025 by the undersigned; a transcript of which has been placed in the claims file. The Veteran re-submitted a March 2025 Buddy Statement so it could be reviewed by the undersigned within the 90 day window following his hearing. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). To establish entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits, a Veteran must show: "(1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service-the so-called "nexus" requirement." Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) has held that "[l]ay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional." Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[T]he Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence"). Service connection must be considered on the basis of the places, types, and circumstances of his service as shown by his service records, the official history of each organization in which he served, his medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, supra; and Buchanan v. Nicholson, supra. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder There is no dispute that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of major depressive disorder as noted in a January 28, 2021 private treatment note. Thus, the first element of service connection is met. The second element is what the Board finds is a corroborated in-service event. Here, the Board finds the Veteran's testimony of an in-service assault probative. The Veteran stated that he was assaulted during his active service and provided details about a specific ship and time. In corroborating his stressor, a fellow Veteran who served with the Veteran submitted an April 2025 Buddy Statement detailing what he witnessed which corroborates the Veteran's statement. Thus, considering the foregoing, the Board finds the report of in-service assault credible and verified. On the element of nexus, the Board finds that the Veteran's April 2025 testimony concerning continuous symptoms of depression to be of some probative value. Moreover, the Board finds that the Veteran is competent to symptoms of depression when these symptoms began and how long it has lasted. As depressive symptoms are an observable symptom which a lay person can identify. Moreover, the Veteran's April 2025 Buddy Statement corroborates the Veteran behaviour in service. Lastly, the Board recognizes the Veteran statements that it was the report of these symptoms which ultimately led to his diagnosis of major depressive disorder in January 2021. The Veteran was provided a VA examination in April 2019 which provided a negative opinion on etiology. The Board finds that the opinion has limited probative value. The VA examiner found that there was no evidence of an in-service incurrence, but never addresses the Veteran lay statements concerning his observation of depressive symptoms in service and continued experience with this symptom. Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that the VA examiner's finding and conclusion have limited probative value. Given the fact there is no adequate negative opinion of record, the Veteran's the credible statements of the Veteran regarding the continuing symptoms since his separation from service, his provided April 2025 Buddy statement, and the later January 2021 diagnosis of major depressive disorder, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. Jandreau v. Nicholson, supra; and Buchanan v. Nicholson, supra. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Acosta-davis, James A. (he/him/his) 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.