ADJUSTMENT DISORDER

GRACE J. SUH · 2025 · Case ID: A25005425

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army National Guard member who served multiple periods of Active Duty for Training (ADT) between September 2013 and July 2018, appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition, specifically adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. The Veteran reported experiencing persistent bullying, threats, and abuse from leadership during his service, including being falsely accused of substance abuse and forced to perform tasks beyond his physical limitations, particularly after knee surgery. Initially, a VA rating decision favorably found a nexus between the psychiatric condition and in-service bullying, but this was later overturned due to a perceived lack of credible supporting evidence. However, a buddy statement from a fellow servicemember corroborated the bullying, hazing, and the Veteran being forced to work with a knee injury. A December 2019 VA examination concluded the Veteran's symptoms were consistent with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression, and the examiner opined it was at least as likely as not caused by in-service bullying, stating the connection could not be ruled out. The Board found this opinion persuasive, noting no contradictory nexus opinion of record. The Board concluded that the Veteran's current diagnosis was caused by persistent in-service bullying, granting service connection.

Rationale

Current diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression met.; Nexus established between psychiatric condition and in-service bullying.; VA examiner opined condition was at least as likely as not caused by bullying.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210630-169613

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25005425
Decision Date: 01/22/25 Archive Date: 01/22/25

DOCKET NO. 210630-169613
DATE: January 22, 2025

ORDER

Service connection for adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran's current diagnoses of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression were caused by the bulling he experienced during his periods of active duty for training (ADT) between September 2013 and July 2018 while serving with his Army National Guard (ARNG) unit.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.125(a).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served a period of ADT from May 2013 to August 2013. He additionally served other periods of ADT as identified within the decision below.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2020 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office, an agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), that denied service connection for acquired psychiatric condition variously assessed to include an adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression; unspecified depressive disorder; and major depressive disorder. See June 2021 VA Form 10182. The decision was issued in response to a February 2020 VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher Level Review (HLR), seeking review of a December 2019 rating decision.

In a June 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time the AOJ issued the December 2019 rating decision which was subsequently underwent HLR in the July 2020 rating decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the December 2019 rating decision and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

A veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131.

Under 38 U.S.C. § 101(2), a "veteran" is defined as "a person who served in the active military, naval, air, or space service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable." The term "active military, naval, air, or space service" includes: (1) active duty; (2) any period of ADT during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty, and; (3) any period of inactive duty for training (IDT) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(21), (22), (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (a)-(d); Biggins v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 474, 477-78 (1991).

"Active duty" is defined as "full-time duty in the Armed Forces, other than active duty for training." 38 U.S.C. § 101(21); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(b)(1). While "Armed Forces" includes "the United States Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, including the reserve components thereof," the ARNG is only a reserve component "while in service of the United States." 10 U.S.C. § 10106; 38 U.S.C. § 101(10). Members of the ARNG are not in active Federal service except when ordered thereto under law pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 12401. Whereas, "active duty for training" for members of the ARNG means "full-time duty under section 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32." 38 U.S.C. § 101(22)(C).

In order to establish veteran status with respect to a period of ADT or IDT, and, therefore, eligibility for service connection, the record must establish that the servicemember was disabled or died due to a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during a period of ADT, or that they were disabled or died from an injury (or from an acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, or cerebrovascular accident) incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during a period of IDT. See Paulson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 466, 470 (1995). In the absence of such evidence, the period of ADT or IDT would not qualify as "active military, naval, air, or space service," and the servicemember would not qualify as a "veteran" for that period of ADT or IDT service alone.

Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that a disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Ordinarily, a lay person is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses; however, a lay person is usually not competent to prove a matter requiring medical expertise. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Layno v. Brown, Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994).

The Veteran asserts that he has an acquired psychiatric condition caused by stressors experienced during his military service and is seeking service connection for this disability.

In his September 2019 VA Form 21-0781, Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD, the Veteran reported that his in-service stressors occurred while he was assigned to a particular unit between September 1, 2013, to July 30, 2018. He indicated that the first incident occurred in February 2016. He relayed being constantly bullied, threatened, and physical and mentally abused by most of the leadership in the unit. He was falsely accused of substance abuse, which took four years to disprove. While he was recovering from knee surgery, he was made to do hard labor, which worsened his condition.

A review of the Veteran's service personnel records (SPRs) shows he was ordered to annual training under 32 U.S.C. § 502 by Orders issued in September 2013 (September 21-30), March 2014 (March 16-20), July 2014 (July 5-14), March 2015 (June 19-July 3), April 2016 (June 4-June 18), June 2017 (June 19-July 3), and July 2018 (August 15-29). These Orders show that he was serving with the same unit identified in the VA Form 21-0781 during those periods. Thus, the Veteran's SPRs establish that his service during these periods constituted ADT.

In a December 2019 rating decision, while adjudicating the
. § 502 by Orders issued in September 2013 (September 21-30), March 2014 (March 16-20), July 2014 (July 5-14), March 2015 (June 19-July 3), April 2016 (June 4-June 18), June 2017 (June 19-July 3), and July 2018 (August 15-29). These Orders show that he was serving with the same unit identified in the VA Form 21-0781 during those periods. Thus, the Veteran's SPRs establish that his service during these periods constituted ADT.

In a December 2019 rating decision, while adjudicating the issue of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the AOJ favorably found that he had been diagnosed with adjustment disorder with chronic anxiety and depression. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Thus, the current diagnosis element of this claim has been met. It also favorably found that a nexus was established between the Veteran's claimed issue and an in-service event or injury, with a VA physician opining that it was impossible to rule out a connection between the Veteran's psychiatric condition and his experiences of bullying. Id.

In the July 2020 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ favorably found that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of chronic acquired psychiatric disabilities, variously assessed to include depressive and anxiety disorders. Id. However, the AOJ also "overturned" its prior favorable finding that a nexus had been established between the Veteran's claimed issue and an in-service event or injury. The AOJ stated that the opinion was predicated solely on the Veteran's reported history of events without credible supporting evidence.

Subsequently, the Veteran's account of bullying is corroborated by an August 2021 buddy statement from B.V.A., who stated that the Veteran was frequently bullied and sought support from him. B.V.A. noted that, in 2015, while recovering from knee surgery and still on medical profile, the Veteran was ordered to cut grass while wearing a knee stabilizer, causing severe pain. B.V.A. also noted that the Veteran was subjected to hazing by his superiors to the point of being threatened with physical violence. Based on the foregoing, the AOJ's basis for overturning the earlier favorable finding has been remedied and the Board finds that the in-service incurrence element has been met as well.

A review of the medical evidence shows that the Veteran underwent a VA PTSD examination in December 2019. During the examination, he reported that he worked with individuals who frequently violated rules and mistreated him for not participating. He described having anxiety and panic attacks as well as being forced to work until he vomited and performing tasks beyond his physical limitations.

The December 2019 VA examiner concluded that the Veteran's symptoms did not meet the criteria for PTSD but were consistent with a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression. The examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the condition was caused by in-service bullying. The examiner emphasized that the Veteran's anxiety began during service and that the connection to bullying could not be ruled out. The examiner further noted that the Veteran has received ongoing treatment for anxiety and depression through VA and concluded that the Veteran's adjustment disorder is most likely service-connected. The Board notes that there is no nexus opinion of record contradicting the December 2019 VA examiner's opinion. As such, the nexus element of this claim has been met.

Although the Veteran indicated in his VA Form 21-0781 that the first incident occurred in February 2016 which is not among the verified ADT dates, his supporting lay statements and the buddy statement from B.V.A. show that the stressors he experienced in service were persistent throughout his service in the particular unit. Thus, the Board concludes that the Veteran's current diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression was caused by his periods of ADT service between September 2013 and July 2018, is due to in-service bullying.

Accordingly, service connection is granted.

Grace J. Suh

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Johnson, Stephone B.

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.

July 2018, is due to in-service bullying.

Accordingly, service connection is granted.

Grace J. Suh

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Johnson, Stephone B.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer