FLATFOOT BILATERAL ACQUIRED

L. HOWELL · 2026 · Case ID: A26000316

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from January 2007 to August 2007, appeals the denial of service connection for a foot disorder (bilateral pes planus), a left knee disorder (left knee strain), a low back disorder (lumbosacral strain), and an acquired psychiatric disorder (PTSD, unspecified mood disorder, GAD, adjustment disorder). The Board denied all claims. For the foot disorder, service treatment records were silent, and the separation examination showed normal arches, with a VA examiner concluding it was less likely than not related to service and likely began post-service. The Board found no basis for secondary service connection to a psychiatric disorder or the service-connected right knee disability, citing lack of medical evidence and the separate nature of the conditions. For the left knee disorder, a current diagnosis was present, but service records were silent, and the separation examination was normal. VA examiners opined the condition was not incurred in service, citing lack of objective findings and attributing it to wear and tear. Secondary claims to the service-connected right knee were denied due to lack of nexus and the Board finding the Veteran's assertions unsupported by clinical records. For the low back disorder, service records were silent, and the separation examination was normal. VA examiners concluded it was not incurred in service due to lack of contemporaneous documentation. Secondary claims to the right knee were denied, with the Board finding the Veteran's lay statements about altered gait unsupported by clinical records, and assigning greater weight to VA opinions. For the psychiatric disorder, the Board found no diagnosis of PTSD in the record, and for other psychiatric diagnoses, service records were silent, with no in-service incurrence or nexus to service-connected conditions established. VA examiners found the psychiatric symptoms related to financial stressors and life events, not service or service-connected conditions, and assigned greater probative value to VA opinions over a private consultant's conclusory report.

Rationale

STRs silent for foot complaints/treatment; Separation exam showed normal arches; VA examiner opined less likely than not related to service; No basis for secondary connection to psychiatric disorder or right knee disability

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250205-521565

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26000316
Decision Date: 01/05/26 Archive Date: 01/05/26

DOCKET NO. 250205-521565
DATE: January 5, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for a foot disorder is denied.

Service connection for a left knee disorder is denied.

Service connection for a low back disorder is denied.

Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran served on active duty from January to August 2007.

2. A foot disorder, diagnosed as bilateral pes planus, was not shown in service, is not causally or etiologically related to service, and is not proximately due to a service-connected disability.

3. A left knee disorder, diagnosed as left knee strain, was not shown in service, is not causally or etiologically related to service, and is not proximately due to a service-connected disability.

4. A low back disorder, diagnosed as lumbosacral strain, was not shown in service, is not causally or etiologically related to service, and is not proximately due to a service-connected disability.

5. A diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has not been shown; there are no verified in-service stressors.

6. An acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD, diagnosed as unspecified mood disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, was not shown in service, was not causally or etiologically related to service, and was not caused by or worsened in severity by a service-connected disability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. A foot disorder was not incurred in service nor is it secondary to a service connected disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310 (2025).

2. A left knee disorder was not incurred in service nor is it secondary to a service connected disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310 (2025).

3. A low back disorder was not incurred in service nor is it secondary to a service connected disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310 (2025).

4. PTSD was not incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2025).

5. An acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD was not incurred in service and is not proximately due to, aggravated by, or the result of a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310 (2025).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

This decision has been written under the guidelines of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). In August 2017, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) denied service connection for depression and a back disorder. In September 2017, the AOJ denied service connection for a left knee disorder. He did not appeal and those decisions became final.

In October 2019, the Veteran filed claims for, among other things, mental health, foot, and back disorders. In December 2019, service connection for PTSD and flatfeet were denied. In December 2020, he requested a Higher Level Review (HLR). That same month, the AOJ continued to deny the claims. In July 2021, he filed a Supplemental Claim for the left knee. In September 2021, service connection continued to be denied.

In December 2023, the Veteran filed another claim for a psychiatric disorder. In April 2024, service connection for an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood was denied. In October 2024, he filed a Supplemental Claim. In December 2024, service connection for unspecified mood disorder, PTSD, adjustment disorder, and depression were denied. (The AOJ considered the issues of PTSD and depression as inferred issues
et were denied. In December 2020, he requested a Higher Level Review (HLR). That same month, the AOJ continued to deny the claims. In July 2021, he filed a Supplemental Claim for the left knee. In September 2021, service connection continued to be denied.

In August 2024, the Veteran filed a Supplemental Claim for the feet, back, and left knee. In December 2024, the AOJ continued to deny the claims. In February 2025, he appealed to the Board via a VA Form 10182 and elected the Evidence Review docket. Therefore, the Board will review the evidence of record at the time of the AOJ's decision, in addition to evidence submitted with the VA Form 10182 or within 90 days following receipt of the VA Form 10182.

In the December 2024 rating decision, the AOJ found that new and relevant evidence was received to reconsider the service connection claim for the back, left knee, and feet. The Board is bound by that favorable finding and will accordingly address the claim on the merits. See 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38C.F.R. §3.104(c).

Next, following the August 2017 and December 2020 rating decisions which denied service connection for PTSD and depression and were final, the Veteran submitted a private report in May 2024 which purports to relate the psychiatric symptoms to reported traumatic events. Additionally, VA mental examinations were submitted evidencing various psychiatric diagnoses, with accompanying negative nexus opinions.

The examination reports are an unestablished element of the claim and this evidence was not previously of record. As such, the evidence is both new and relevant, and the appeal for a psychiatric disorder will be reconsidered on the merits.

Turning to the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted on a direct basis as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (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 in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

With specific regard to PTSD claims, three elements must be present: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) medical evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and a claimed in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997).

In addition to the laws and regulations outlined above, service connection may only be granted for a current disability; when a claimed condition is not shown, there may be no grant of service connection. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992) (Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability). "In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim." See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

Service connection may be granted on a secondary basis for a disability which is aggravated by, proximately due to, or the result of a service-connected disease or injury under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). In order to establish service connection on a secondary basis, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical evidence establishing a link between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998).

Feet

Turning to the medical evidence, an October 2024 VA examiner diagnosed bilateral pes planus.
disability which is aggravated by, proximately due to, or the result of a service-connected disease or injury under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). In order to establish service connection on a secondary basis, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical evidence establishing a link between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998).

Feet

Turning to the medical evidence, an October 2024 VA examiner diagnosed bilateral pes planus. As such, the first element of service connection has been met.

As to an in-service incurrence, the service treatment records (STRs) are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for a foot related disorder. The July 2007 separation examination undertaken after the Veteran's brief period of active duty reflected normal arches of the foot. As such, the second element of direct service connection has not been met and the medical evidence does not support service connection on this basis.

Notably, a December 2019 VA examiner opined that a bilateral foot disorder was not incurred in or a result of service. In support, the examiner reasoned that the July 2007 separation examination was silent for any foot problems and noted "normal arch" which suggests the Veteran did not have pes planus. Additionally, the June 2007 Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) report noted "normal ankle and foot function." The examiner suggested that the foot disorder began after service. This evidence weighs against direct service connection.

As to secondary service connection, the Veteran asserts that the foot disorder is secondary to a nonservice-connected psychiatric disorder and/or a service connected right knee disability. As noted above, he has been diagnosed with bilateral pes planus; however, he is not currently service connected for a psychiatric disorder.

While the Veteran has a diagnosis for an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, a December 2019 VA examiner concluded that the foot disorder was not proximately due to a psychiatric disorder because the foot disorder occurred subsequent to the psychiatric diagnosis and was not related either as a means of coping or as a psychological reaction to the condition. Rather, the examiner found that the foot disorder was a separate entity and unrelated to the psychiatric disorder. This evidence weighs against service connection on a secondary basis.

As to the issue of whether a foot disorder is secondary to a service-connected right knee disability, an October 2024 VA examiner concluded that the foot disorder was not proximately due to or the result of the service-connected right knee disability. The examiner reasoned that there was no medical evidence to support a nexus between the flatfeet and service or as secondary to right knee surgery.

The examiner noted that flat feet was a structural condition that could be congenital or develop over time and was not typically caused by knee pathology but could be due to chronic stress on the foot's arch. The examiner noted the Veteran's claim for flatfeet as secondary to knee surgery lacked a medical basis, as knee surgeries did not commonly contribute to or cause flatfeet deformities.

The examiner cited to supporting literature by The American Orthopedic Foot & Ankle Society indicating that pes planus was not a typical sequela of knee surgeries as the mechanics involved did not directly impact the foot's arch. This evidence weighs against secondary service connection.

Left Knee

Turning to the medical evidence, an October 2024 VA examiner diagnosed left knee strain. Therefore, a current disorder has been shown and the first element of service connection has been met.

As to an in-service incurrence, STRs are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for a left knee disorder. The July 2007 separation examination reflects a normal clinical evaluation of the lower extremities. As such, the second element of direct service connection has not been met and the medical evidence does not support service connection on this basis.

To the extent that the Veteran asserts a medical nexus between the left knee disorder and service, an October 2024 VA examiner concluded that the left knee disorder was not incurred in service. In support, the examiner confirmed that X-ray findings showed no objective evidence of arthritis in the left knee and that the absence of degenerative changes and other indicators of arthritis negated the claim of left knee arthritis.

The examiner remarked that arthritis was typically confirmed by radiographic findings showing joint space narrowing, osteophyte formation, or subchondral sclerosis. In this case, the X-ray findings did not support the diagnosis. Without radiographic evidence or clinical symptoms documented during service, there was no basis to connect the claimed arthritis to service. This evidence weighs against the appeal.

As to secondary service connection, as noted above, the Veteran has been diagnosed with left knee
2024 VA examiner concluded that the left knee disorder was not incurred in service. In support, the examiner confirmed that X-ray findings showed no objective evidence of arthritis in the left knee and that the absence of degenerative changes and other indicators of arthritis negated the claim of left knee arthritis.

As to secondary service connection, as noted above, the Veteran has been diagnosed with left knee strain and is service connected for a right knee disability. As to a medical nexus between the two, an August 2017 VA examiner concluded that the left knee disorder was not proximately due to or the result of the service connected right knee disability. In support, the examiner reasoned that there was no gait or weight bearing disturbance of severity sufficient to implicate the Veteran's right knee disability as an etiology for the current left knee disorder which was more likely due to typical senescent wear and tear over time since discharge.

A September 2017 VA examiner provided an addendum opinion discussing how arthritis in one joint does not cause arthritis in another joint as medical literature does not support a connection. This evidence also weighs against the appeal. In July 2021 correspondence, the Veteran reported uneven gait, pain with motion, buckling, weakness, stiffness after prolonged sitting, and the need to shift his body weight back and forth to alleviate discomfort.

A September 2021 VA examiner provided a negative secondary nexus opinion. In support, the examiner cited to the August 2017 and September 2017 VA examiners' reasoning. This examiner also cited to Mayo Clinic literature suggesting that obesity and carrying extra body weight contributed to osteoarthritis and increased stress to non-weight bearing joints, such as hips and knees. The Veteran had documented increased weight and body mass index (BMI). Finally, the examiner referenced unremarkable findings for osteoarthritis in the left knee suggesting the lack of connection to the right knee. Thus, the medical evidence does not support the appeal.

Back

Turning to the medical evidence, an October 2024 VA examiner diagnosed lumbosacral strain. Therefore, the first element of service connection has been met.

As to an in-service incurrence, the STRs are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis for a back disorder. The July 2007 separation examination reflects a normal clinical assessment of the spine. As such, the second element of direct service connection has not been met and the medical evidence does not support service connection on this basis.

To the extent that the Veteran asserts a nexus between a low back disorder and service, an October 2024 VA examiner concluded that the back disorder was not incurred in or a result of service. In support, the examiner reasoned that the STRs did not document any lower back complaints, treatments, or injuries during the Veteran's time in service.

The examiner noted that lumbar sprains or strains generally had a clear mechanism of injury, often documented in medical records. The absence of any back-related complaints or treatments in the STRs suggested no in-service causative event. The examiner reflected that post-service medical records alone did not establish a service connection. Finally, the examiner indicated that clinical guidelines emphasize the importance of contemporaneous documentation and a direct link to trauma or repetitive strain during the service period. This evidence weighs against the appeal.

As to secondary service connection, as noted above, the Veteran has been diagnosed with lumbosacral strain and is service connected for a right knee disability. In July 2021 correspondence, he attributed back pain to the right knee disability, indicating that the right knee caused him to walk unevenly leading to pain in the lower back. He experienced muscle spasms two to three times per week which affects his daily activities.

As to a medical nexus between the two, a May 2024 private consultant determined the back, foot, and left knee disorders were secondarily caused by the service connected right knee disability.

With regard to the back, the Veteran reported that since the right knee disability, he had suffered from daily, progressive low back pain, varying in degrees and intensified by standing, sitting, bending, twisting, walking, and transitioning to and from a seated position. The consultant concluded it was as likely as not that the back disorder, a permanent and progressive condition, was directly and causally related to constant and chronic compensation and adaptation to the weight shifting and altered gait caused by the injured right knee.

With regard to the foot, the Veteran reported that since the right knee disability, he suffered from pain with standing and walking for prolonged periods. The examination was positive for pes planus and plantar fasciitis. The consultant concluded it was as likely as not that the foot disorder, a permanent and progressive condition, was directly and causally related to constant and chronic compensation and adaptation to the weight shifting and altered gait caused by the injured right knee.

With regard to the left knee, the Veteran reported that since the right knee disability, he suffered from daily, progressive pain and dysfunction of the left knee, varying in degrees and intensified by sitting, walking, standing, stairs, transitioning to other positions, and arising from a seated position. The consultant concluded it was as likely as not the left knee, a permanent and progressive condition, was directly and causally related to constant and chronic compensation and adaptation to the weight shifting and altered gait caused by the injured right knee.

After a careful review of the record, the Board finds service connection for the foot, left knee, and back is not warranted on a secondary basis.

Specifically, although the May 2024 private consultant found a positive causal connection between the foot, left knee, and back disorders and the service connected right knee disability, a sufficient rationale was not provided and was conclusory in nature. In this regard, the private consultant conducted a physical examination and based their opinion on lay statements provided by the Veteran, but clinical records do not support the consultant's findings nor the Veteran's assertions.

Specifically, VA clinical records do not evidence a change in gait as a result of the 2007 right knee surgery. In fact, it was noted that the Veteran walked slow due to pain, not as a result of chronic compensation and adaptation to weight shifting and/or altered gait due to the right knee. Further, he did not seek treatment or complain of foot-related pain until he filed his claim in 2019 and reported that to the December 2019 VA examiner.

In addition, in October 2011, the Veteran complained of left knee pain for the past month and referenced the previous right knee surgery but did not suggest that the left knee pain was due to the right knee. In a June 2021 VA knee examination (evaluation of the right knee), he reported that the right knee was "a little better" and that he had "more motion in the right knee." Additionally, objective findings of the left knee were unremarkable upon range of motion, strength and instability testing.

Next, VA clinical records in 2011 show the back was within normal limits. The October 2024 back examination did not evidence any objective findings of guarding or muscle spasm resulting in abnormal gait. This evidence all weighs against the findings by the private consultant.

As such the Board assigns the May 2024 private opinion lesser probative value. Although the consultant apparently conducted a physical examination of the Veteran, the opinion is primarily based on the Veteran's assertions that the claimed disorders were a result of altered gait caused by the right knee disability, which is unsupported by the record.

On the other hand, the Board finds that the VA examination/opinions were adequate for evaluation purposes. Specifically, the examiners reviewed the claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and conducted a physical examination. There is no indication that the VA examiners were not fully aware of the Veteran's past medical history or that they misstated any relevant fact.

Moreover, the examiners have the requisite medical expertise to render medical opinions regarding the etiology of the disorders and had sufficient facts and data on which to base the conclusions. Therefore, the Board finds the VA examiners' opinions to be of great probative value and weigh against service connection on a direct or secondary basis.

The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements that the foot, left knee, and back disorders are both directly related to service and/or secondary to the service connected right knee disability. While he is competent to report symptoms as this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses, he is not competent to offer an opinion as to the etiology of the current disorders due to the medical complexity of the matters involved.

Such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the disorders has been provided by the medical personnel who examined him during the
facts and data on which to base the conclusions. Therefore, the Board finds the VA examiners' opinions to be of great probative value and weigh against service connection on a direct or secondary basis.

Such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the disorders has been provided by the medical personnel who examined him during the current appeal and rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The findings (as provided in the July 2017, August 2017, September 2017, November 2019, September 2021, and October 2024 VA examinations/opinion reports and other clinical evidence) directly address the criteria under which the disorders are evaluated.

The VA medical professionals explained their reasoning based on an accurate characterization of the evidence. Therefore, the Board attaches greater probative weight to the examination reports and clinical findings than to the Veteran's lay statements regarding etiology.

The Board assigns greater probative weight to the VA opinions as they were based on an in-person examination of the Veteran, considered his pertinent medical and military history, and contained an explanation with clear conclusions and supporting data (with reference to pertinent medical literature). In contrast, the Board assigns less probative weight to the conclusory May 2024 private consultant opinion because it lacked a supporting rationale and is contradicted by clinical records.

In sum, after a careful review of the record, the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim for service connection for a foot, left knee, and back disorder and there is no doubt to be resolved. As such, the appeals are denied.

Acquired Psychiatric Disorder

The Veteran asserts that PTSD is related to witnessing a fellow serviceman who was sexually assaulted in the shower and/or the injury to the left knee in service. He also attributes PTSD to depression from being on a military clock, insomnia, paranoia, and hypervigilance.

To the extent that the Veteran claims PTSD, the first element of service connection is not met as the medical evidence does not support a diagnosis. The VA treatment records do not reflect a confirmed diagnosis of PTSD. As noted above, service connection may only be granted for a current disability. To that end, the STRs are negative for any complaints of, symptoms of, diagnoses, or treatments suggestive of a psychiatric disorder. This evidence weighs against a finding that a psychiatric disorder was present during service.

Similarly, there is no indication the Veteran sought medical care for any psychiatric disorders in the immediate years following service. Rather, the first clinical records related to psychiatric treatments are dated in 2017, more than 10 years following discharge, and reflect treatment for depression. Treatment records variously show assessments for PTSD but a definitive diagnosis for PTSD based on the DSM criteria was not clearly shown. There is no contradictory medical evidence of record reflecting a diagnosis of PTSD during the appeal period. Without a diagnosis of PTSD, the appeal on this basis is denied.

To the extent that the record reflects a diagnosis other than PTSD, specifically unspecified mood disorder, GAD, and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, the medical evidence does not support a nexus. VA and private examinations confirm diagnoses for these disorders and the first element of service connection has been met.

As to an in-service incurrence, STRs are silent for complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis for a mental health disorder. Therefore, the second element of direct service connection is not met. To the extent that the Veteran asserts a nexus between a psychiatric disorder and service, no medical professional has established such a relationship. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support service connection on a direct basis.

As to secondary service connection, the Veteran asserts that the psychiatric disorders are related to injuries involving his knees and back due to hard labor as well as the inability to provide for his family due to those conditions. In September 2017 VA mental health records, he attributed depression to unemployment and inability to stand for prolonged periods.

A December 2019 VA examiner diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. The Veteran reported distressing dreams with violent content (likely related to gang history and/or violence-themed media) and various life stressors (strained relationship with older children, unemployment, perception that relatives have opportunistic intentions, living with father until relocation to Albany had been completed, work-related problems). He also reported that things typically did not work out for him and he had not been able to complete anything that he started such as military, college, and work aspirations.

A March 2024 VA examiner diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed
due to those conditions. In September 2017 VA mental health records, he attributed depression to unemployment and inability to stand for prolonged periods.

A March 2024 VA examiner diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, chronic. The examiner determined that a psychiatric disorder was not directly due to service and/or proximately due to or the result of a service connected disability. In support, the examiner referenced the Veteran's reports of clinical depression/anxiety symptoms associated with financial stressors, future prospects, and tending to the needs of his family in the context of his financial concerns and unemployment.

The examiner noted that the Veteran attributed pain and physical limitations associated with the right knee disability as contributed to anxiety; however, the examiner indicated that the etiology of the Veteran's adjustment-related symptoms appeared to be predominantly associated with financial concerns and life stressors independent of the medical conditions.

The examiner noted that the Veteran's adjustment-related depression/anxiety began subsequent to the service-connected right knee conditions; however, he did not attribute or describe the onset, progression, and/or expression of the current psychiatric symptoms as being a means of coping or as a psychological reaction to the right knee disability. This evidence weighs against the appeal.

A May 2024 private psychological consultation diagnosed unspecified mood disorder and GAD, with various accompanying symptoms. In this consultation report, the Veteran provided written accounts of events from service; however, the consultant indicated that due to concerns about re-traumatization, the events that led to symptomatology were not explored in detail. The Veteran reported onset of insomnia symptoms in 2007 and symptoms related to hygiene and maintenance of appearance in 2020.

Upon mental examination, the consultant found the Veteran to be easily engaged but quite discreet regarding discussions of his military experiences. Upon discussing various personality findings, the consultant suggested that individuals with similar profiles could experience symptoms related to traumatic event(s) they have endured. However, the consultant did not directly attribute the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms to events in service nor was a nexus opinion provided. The consultant simply recommended ongoing psychiatric treatment. An accompanying private mental Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) demonstrated the same.

A December 2024 VA examiner cited to the findings of the March 2024 VA opinion and indicated that the right knee disability was not identified in the May 2024 private DBQ as being "relevant to the understanding or management of the mental health disorder." As such, the examiner concluded that the Veteran's unspecified mood disorder and the originally diagnosed chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood were less likely than not (likelihood is less than approximately or nearly equal) proximately due to, or the result of his service connected right knee disability.

The examiner also indicated that the service connected tinnitus was not identified in the May 2024 private DBQ as being "relevant to the understanding or management of the mental health disorder." Additionally, the examiner suggested that the Veteran did not attribute or describe the onset, progression, and/or expression of the psychiatric symptoms as being a means of coping or as a psychological reaction to tinnitus. A relationship between residual symptoms of tinnitus and the Veteran's psychological functioning was not identified in his December 2019 VA audiological examination. Based on the above, the medical evidence does not support service connection.

As noted above, STRs are negative for complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of any acquired psychiatric disorder and the earliest documentation for complaints and/or treatments for psychiatric related symptoms was in 2017, nearly 10 years after discharge. Thus, this evidence does not support the appeal.

Additionally, there is no nexus opinion relating the psychiatric disorder(s) to a service connected disability. Instead, the Veteran's psychiatric disorders were found to be likely related to financial stressors, future prospects, and tending to the needs of his family, which is supported in clinical treatment records.

The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements concerning the events in service and subsequent impact on his personal life following separation. He is competent to report psychiatric symptomatology he may have experienced, which is within the realm of his personal experience. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159; see Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-71 (1994). However, he is not competent to relate such symptomatology to a diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder.

The Board has weighed the Veteran's lay statements
the Veteran's psychiatric disorders were found to be likely related to financial stressors, future prospects, and tending to the needs of his family, which is supported in clinical treatment records.

The Board has weighed the Veteran's lay statements against the contemporaneous medical evidence which is inconsistent with the claim. In this regard, the Veteran only asserts a connection between his psychiatric disorder and unemployability due to his knees and back, which is unsupported by the clinical evidence of record.

The Board finds that the examinations were adequate for evaluation purposes. Specifically, the examiners reviewed the claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and conducted a physical examination. There is no indication that the VA examiners were not fully aware of the Veteran's past medical history or that he misstated any relevant fact.

Moreover, the examiners have the requisite medical expertise to render a medical opinion regarding the etiology of the disorder and had sufficient facts and data on which to base the conclusion. Further, there is no contradictory medical evidence of record. Therefore, the Board finds the VA examiners' opinions to be of great probative value.

In sum, after careful review of the record, the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be resolved. As such, the appeal is denied.

Finally, the Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, for the Board's consideration. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-370 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record).

L. HOWELL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Y. Asfaw, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer