MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

Summary

The Veteran served in the United States Army from July 1985 to April 1988, with a second period of service from November 1990 to May 1991. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for depression, both directly and as secondary to a bilateral knee disorder. The Veteran contends he has a diagnosis of depression related to service or secondary to his knee condition, citing symptoms such as depression, short temper, hopelessness, memory loss, deteriorating relationships, nightmares, and panic attacks. However, the Board found no current diagnosis of depression in the record. The Board noted that while the Veteran is competent to describe symptoms, he lacks the medical expertise to diagnose a condition or its etiology. The absence of objective medical evidence, including a diagnosis, was persuasive against a service connection, citing Buchanan v. Nicholson. The Board also determined that VA's duty to provide an examination was not triggered due to the lack of a diagnosis and credible evidence linking the claimed symptoms to service. Consequently, the Board denied service connection for depression on both direct and secondary bases, finding the evidence weighed against the claim and the benefit-of-the-doubt standard did not apply.

Rationale

No current diagnosis of depression; Lay contentions lack probative value without objective medical evidence; Absence of diagnosis suggests symptoms did not begin in service

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25018142
Decision Date: 02/27/25	Archive Date: 02/27/25

DOCKET NO. 210917-185083
DATE: February 27, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for depression, to include as secondary to a bilateral knee disorder, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran does not have a diagnosis of depression which could be attributed to active service or to a bilateral knee disorder.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for establishing service connection for depression, to include as secondary to a bilateral knee disorder, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1985 to April 1988, with a second period of service from November 1990 to May 1991.

This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a higher-level review decision issued in September 2020 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. 

In the August 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

The Board notes the Veteran's Form 10182 also contains three claims not adjudicated here: service connection for a bilateral knee condition, tinnitus, and migraine headaches. In an August 2021 letter, the Board notified the Veteran that the following claims could not be appealed via the August 2021 Form 10182 as they were not within one year of the last decision for each issue. Thus, those claims are not part of this appeal and will not be discussed here.

Entitlement to service connection for depression, to include as secondary to a bilateral knee disorder.

The Veteran contends that he has a diagnosis of depression which is related to his active service. Alternatively, the Veteran contends that he has a diagnosis of depression which can be attributed to a bilateral knee disorder.

To establish service connection on a direct basis, the evidence must show (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship or nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be found on a secondary basis where the following criteria are met: (1) a current disability that is not already service-connected; (2) at least one service-connected disability; and (3) evidence that the non-service-connected current disability is either proximately due to or as the result of a service-connected disability; or, aggravated by a service-connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; see also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995).

Upon a review of the medical evidence of record, the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of depression. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has asserted that he has symptoms of diagnosable depression attributable to service such as depression, short tempered with spouse, hopelessness, difficulty with authority, short term memory loss, relationship with family/friends is deteriorating, nightmares when sleeping, and panic attacks. See September 2020 Higher-Level Review Informal Conference Worksheet. The Veteran is competent to testify as to when his symptoms began. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, the fact that the claims file does not contain a diagnosis of depression is persuasive
. 439 (1995).

Upon a review of the medical evidence of record, the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of depression. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran has asserted that he has symptoms of diagnosable depression attributable to service such as depression, short tempered with spouse, hopelessness, difficulty with authority, short term memory loss, relationship with family/friends is deteriorating, nightmares when sleeping, and panic attacks. See September 2020 Higher-Level Review Informal Conference Worksheet. The Veteran is competent to testify as to when his symptoms began. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, the fact that the claims file does not contain a diagnosis of depression is persuasive evidence tending to demonstrate that there no link between such symptoms and his military service. The Veteran has provided no objective medical evidence in support of his assertion that he has a current diagnosis of depression. The absence of such diagnosis suggests that the Veteran's claimed symptoms did not begin in service. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus, the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim of service connection for depression on both a direct basis under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) or based on continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Additionally, the lack of a diagnosis of depression and the lack of a separate service-connected disability with which the Veteran's symptoms may be attributed to on a secondary basis weigh persuasively against the claim of service connection for depression on a secondary basis due to a bilateral knee disorder. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

The Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in relation to this claim. Here, VA's duty to provide the Veteran with an examination has not been triggered. The record does not show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with depression by a medical professional at any time since service. Moreover, there is no credible and competent evidence of record suggesting that the Veteran's claimed disorder is related to service or began in service. While the Veteran is competent to provide a description of symptoms, he lacks the training or credentials needed to ascertain a disability, such as a diagnosed mental condition, or its etiology. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). His lay contentions thus lack probative value. Accordingly, no examination or medical opinion is required. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

In sum, the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of depression for the purposes of service connection. Therefore, the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim for service connection for depression on a direct or secondary basis, the benefit-of-the-doubt standard of proof does not apply, and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). 

 

A. C. MACKENZIE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Wood, Paul T.

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.