MENTAL DISORDERS

Summary

The Veteran served in the Army from August 1998 to September 1998. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran submitted a private PTSD disability benefit questionnaire in June 2025, diagnosing PTSD and other acquired psychiatric conditions, and opining that these disorders were related to live fire training exercises during basic training. The Board noted the Veteran's service treatment records were negative for psychiatric complaints, but military personnel records indicated the Veteran felt constantly sad during service. For the PTSD claim, the Board found that while the Veteran had a current diagnosis, the claimed stressor did not meet the specific requirements for service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), as there was no in-service diagnosis, combat engagement, or credible corroboration of the claimed stressor. The evidence persuasively weighed against the PTSD claim, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine was inapplicable. Conversely, the Board found sufficient evidence for an acquired psychiatric disorder, granting service connection based on the private examiner's opinion that it was at least as likely as not caused by active service, supported by the Veteran's testimony about live fire drills and the absence of contrary medical opinions. The Board granted service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder but denied service connection for PTSD.

Rationale

Private examiner found disorder related to active service; Examiner provided sufficient rationale; No probative contrary medical opinions

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25102746
Decision Date: 11/28/25	Archive Date: 11/28/25

DOCKET NO. 250617-554630
DATE: November 28, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, not to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder that is related to active duty service.

2. The Veteran has a current diagnosis for PTSD; however, the Veteran's claimed stressor does not meet the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, not to include PTSD, have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

2. The criteria for service connection for PTSD have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304(f).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1998 to September 1998.

In the June 17, 2025 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 of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or 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 decision on appeal 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. 

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[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Last, the Board notes that on the June 2025 Third Party Correspondence, the Veteran's attorney indicated that the Veteran was homeless.  The Veteran also reported homelessness during the June 2025 PTSD examination.  A motion to advance the case on the docket (AOD) may be granted if, among other factors, the Veteran is seriously ill, or under severe financial hardship.  38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c).  Accordingly, the Board grants the Veteran AOD status herein based on financial hardship.

The Veteran asserts that his PTSD arose from his experiences in-service, to include being around live gunfire.  See December 2024 Correspondence.  

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).  Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).  To prevail on the issue of service connection, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability.  See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Regarding entitlement to service connection for PTSD, there are particular requirements for establishing service connection for PTSD which must be met independently of the general requirements for service connection.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3
3.303(d).  To prevail on the issue of service connection, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability.  See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

Regarding entitlement to service connection for PTSD, there are particular requirements for establishing service connection for PTSD which must be met independently of the general requirements for service connection.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), that is, a diagnosis that conforms to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred.  38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f).  See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.384.  

VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively favors one side or another.  38 C.F.R. § 4.3.  When there is an approximate or nearly equal balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the Veteran and the claim will be granted on the merits.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).  When the evidence persuasively favors against the claims of the Veteran, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable, and the claim will be denied on its merits.  38 U.S.C. § 5107; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990).

In this case, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of acquired psychiatric disorders.  However, the Veteran's military personnel records show a report of the Veteran feeling constantly sad during his time in the Army.  See September 1998 Soldier's Questionnaire.  

The Veteran provided a private examination and PTSD disability benefit questionnaire in June 2025.  The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD and acquired psychiatric condition, to include bipolar, schizophrenia, and depression.  The examiner determined the Veteran's psychiatric disorders were related to live fire training exercises during basic training.  

The Board has reviewed the Veteran's stressor to determine if it meets the criteria of service connection for PTSD.  The Veteran does not allege, and the evidence does not show a diagnosis for PTSD during the Veteran's service in 1998; therefore 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(1) is not applicable.  The Veteran did not engage in combat and therefore 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(2) is not applicable.  The Veteran's claimed stressor is not related to the Veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and therefore 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3) is not applicable.  The Vetern was not a prisoner of war, and the claim is not based on personal assault; therefore, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.304(f)(4), (5) are not applicable.  

In summary, while the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD, the diagnosis is not based on a stressor that meets the requirements for service connection as outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f).  Accordingly, the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of service connection for PTSD.  As the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against service connection, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply; and the claim for PTSD must be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch, 21 F.4th at 776.

Conversely, the Board finds the evidence is in favor of finding that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder arose as a result of his active service.  The June 2025 examiner found it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was caused by active service.  While the requirements for PTSD have not been met,
ative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of service connection for PTSD.  As the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against service connection, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply; and the claim for PTSD must be denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch, 21 F.4th at 776.

Conversely, the Board finds the evidence is in favor of finding that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder arose as a result of his active service.  The June 2025 examiner found it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was caused by active service.  While the requirements for PTSD have not been met, claims for other psychiatric disorders do not have this requirement.  The examiner provided sufficient rationale based upon a complete review of the Veteran's record to support their finding that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was related to live fire drills during active service.  The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report his experiences of live firing of ammunitions during his military training.  The Board notes that there are no probative contrary medical opinions of record.  Thus, entitlement to an acquired psychiatric disorder is warranted, and the claim is granted in full.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

 

 

Paul R. Casey

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	B. N. Quarles

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.