PSYCHOSIS

A. JAEGER · 2026 · Case ID: A26010384

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Navy Reserve from September 2009 to August 2011 with periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA), appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, an allergic disorder or residuals thereof, a right shoulder disorder, a right ankle disorder, and a right hip disorder. The veteran claimed a psychiatric disorder arose from changes in life circumstances and separation from his child during service, supported by emails from early 2011. However, his service treatment records were negative for any psychiatric complaints, and he did not submit post-service treatment records. The Board found the veteran competent to report symptoms but not to diagnose a psychiatric disorder, and that his new theories of entitlement raised at the May 2024 hearing were too late to establish a pre-decisional duty to assist error. For the allergic disorder, the veteran claimed residuals from an anaphylactic reaction in June 2010, supported by emergency treatment records, but the Board found no current residuals and noted that acute allergic reactions typically heal without residuals. He also claimed a right shoulder disorder, first alleging a sledgehammer injury during demolition at Pearl Harbor in June 2010, supported by lay opinions from an occupational therapy assistant and massage therapist. The Board found these lay opinions lacked probative weight due to the individuals' lack of medical expertise and the veteran's own lay status to diagnose the etiology. For the right ankle and hip disorders, the veteran claimed reinjury of a pre-existing ankle condition during physical training in June 2010, which then caused or aggravated a hip disorder, supported by a fellow service member's statement. However, his service records showed normal findings for his ankle at entry and were negative for ankle or hip complaints, with a denial of ankle issues since enlistment. The Board found the veteran lacked the expertise to diagnose the etiology of these conditions and that his new theories raised at the May 2024 hearing were untimely. The Board denied all claims, finding the weight of the evidence against the appellant's claims and the benefit of the doubt doctrine inapplicable.

Rationale

No current disability of acquired psychiatric disorder; No recent diagnosis prior to claim filing; Service treatment records negative for psychiatric complaints/diagnosis; Appellant not competent to diagnose psychiatric disorder; New theories raised at hearing were untimely

Service Branch

NAVY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

200702-94656

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26010384
Decision Date: 02/04/26 Archive Date: 02/04/26

DOCKET NO. 200702-94656
DATE: February 4, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

Service connection for an allergic disorder, or residuals thereof, is denied.

Service connection for a right shoulder disorder is denied.

Service connection for a right ankle disorder is denied.

Service connection for a right hip disorder is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the appellant have a current disability of an acquired psychiatric disorder, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to the appellant's filing of a claim.

2. At no time during the pendency of the claim does the appellant have a current disability of an allergic disorder, or residuals thereof, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of such a disability prior to the appellant's filing of a claim.

3. A right shoulder disorder is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) or an injury incurred or aggravated during a period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA).

4. A right ankle disorder is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during period of ACDUTRA or an injury incurred or aggravated during a period of INACDUTRA.

5. A right hip disorder is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during period of ACDUTRA or an injury incurred or aggravated during a period of INACDUTRA, or caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (d), 3.6 (a), 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for an allergic disorder, or residuals thereof, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (d), 3.6 (a), 3.102, 3.303, 3.380.

3. The criteria for service connection for a right shoulder disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (d), 3.6 (a), 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for a right ankle disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (d), 3.6 (a), 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for a right hip disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101 (24), 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1 (d), 3.6 (a), 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The appellant served in the United States Navy Reserve from September 2009 to August 2011 with periods of ACDUTRA, to include from September 29, 2009, to February 10, 2010, and June 22, 2010, to July 8, 2010, and INACDUTRA.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in October 2019 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office under the modernized appeals system known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). In July 2020, the appellant timely appealed such rating decisions by filing a Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (VA Form 10182) and requested a Board hearing, which was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2024. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the October 2019 Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the appellant or his representative at the hearing or within 90
by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office under the modernized appeals system known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). In July 2020, the appellant timely appealed such rating decisions by filing a Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (VA Form 10182) and requested a Board hearing, which was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in May 2024. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the October 2019 Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the appellant or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

If the appellant would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, he 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Service Connection

A Veteran is a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service and who was discharged or released under conditions other "than dishonorable." 38 C.F.R. § 3.1 (d). The term "active military, naval, or air service" includes: (1) active duty; (2) any period of ACDUTRA during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty; and (3) any period of INACDUTRA during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101 (24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (a). ACDUTRA includes full-time duty performed by members of the National Guard of any State or the Reserve. 38 C.F.R. § 3.6 (c).

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, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Pertinent to a claim for service connection, such a determination requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); see also Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992). Under applicable regulation, the term "disability" means impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries and their residual conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; see also Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296 (1991); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the term "disability" as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability," and held that "pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability"). However, VA requires a diagnosis that conforms to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
.R. § 4.1; see also Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296 (1991); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (the term "disability" as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 "refers to the functional impairment of earning capacity, not the underlying cause of said disability," and held that "pain alone can serve as a functional impairment and therefore qualify as a disability"). However, VA requires a diagnosis that conforms to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) to compensate for a psychiatric disability, therefore constraining the application of Saunders in the context of claims for service connection for psychiatric disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.125; Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393 (2020).

In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time, he files his claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim. However, in Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013), the Court held that when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a claimant filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency.

1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

The appellant is seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. In this regard, at his May 2024 Board hearing, he asserted that he developed such disorder during his military service due to change of life circumstances. More specifically, he reported that, after the birth of his first child in March 2010, his spouse moved to another state with their child in late 2010/early 2011, triggering a mental health decline. The appellant further indicated that his command was unsupportive, he lost motivation, and developed anxiety and depression. In support thereof, in May 2024, he submitted February 2011 and July 2011 emails where he indicated that he was having difficulty attending weekend training sessions due to transportation issues, separation from his infant son, and financial difficulties.

However, the appellant's service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis referable to an acquired psychiatric disorder, and he did not identify any post-service treatment records. Furthermore, while the appellant is competent to report relevant symptoms, he is not competent, as a lay person, to diagnose an acquired psychiatric disorder as such requires the administration and interpretation of a clinical evaluation and diagnostic testing. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 491 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007) (explaining that while the claimant is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg or varicose veins, the claimant is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions).

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that at no time during the pendency of the claim does the appellant have current disability of an acquired psychiatric disorder, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to his filing of a claim. See McClain, supra; Romanowsky, supra. Thus, where, as here, there is no probative evidence indicating that the appellant has the disability for which service connection is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Brammer, supra. Consequently, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not warranted.

In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the weight of the probative evidence is against the appellant's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, such doctrine is not applicable the instant appeal and
have current disability of an acquired psychiatric disorder, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to his filing of a claim. See McClain, supra; Romanowsky, supra. Thus, where, as here, there is no probative evidence indicating that the appellant has the disability for which service connection is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Brammer, supra. Consequently, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not warranted.

2. Entitlement to service connection for an allergic disorder, or residuals thereof.

In his July 2019 claim, the appellant indicated that he was seeking service connection for an "allergic condition, to include residuals," but did not identify such condition or residuals. However, at his May 2024 Board hearing he reported that he was seeking service connection for residuals of an anaphylactic reaction to a pistachio he consumed on June 18, 2010, several days prior to the commencement of a period of ACDUTRA from June 22, 2010, to July 08, 2010, when he was ordered to Pearl Harbor to perform demolition work. In this regard, he reported a change in his breathing and anxiety regarding tree nuts as a result of such reaction.

In support of his claim, in May 2024, the appellant submitted the record pertaining to his June 18, 2010, emergency treatment for an acute anaphylactic reaction after eating a pistachio. However, there is no medical evidence reflecting current residuals thereof. Additionally, per 38 C.F.R. § 3.380, seasonal and other acute allergic manifestations subsiding on the absence of or removal of the allergen are generally to be regarded as acute diseases, healing without residuals. Further, while the appellant reported residuals from this allergic episode consisting of a change in his breathing and anxiety regarding tree nuts, he is not competent, as a lay person, to diagnose a respiratory or psychiatric disorder as such requires the administration and interpretation of a clinical evaluation and diagnostic testing. See Jandreau, supra; Woehlaert, supra.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that at no time during the pendency of the claim does the appellant have current disability of an allergic disorder, or residuals thereof, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of disability prior to his filing of a claim. See McClain, supra; Romanowsky, supra. Thus, where, as here, there is no probative evidence indicating that the appellant has the disability for which service connection is sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Brammer, supra. Consequently, service connection for an allergic disorder, or residuals thereof, is not warranted.

3. Entitlement to service connection for a right shoulder disorder.

As an initial matter, the Board notes that, while the record does not contain a definitive diagnosis of a right shoulder disorder, July 2024 statements from his occupational therapy assistant and a licensed massage therapist reflect ongoing treatment for relevant complaints, and he is competent, as a lay person, to report experiencing related functional impairments, which he described at the May 2024 hearing as an inability to perform manual or physical labor. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-71 (1994) (a lay person is competent to report symptoms based on personal observation when no special knowledge or training is required); Saunders, supra. As such, for the limited purpose of the analysis of the claims on appeal, the Board will assume the existence of a current right shoulder disorder.

However, at the time of the issuance of the October 2019 rating
his occupational therapy assistant and a licensed massage therapist reflect ongoing treatment for relevant complaints, and he is competent, as a lay person, to report experiencing related functional impairments, which he described at the May 2024 hearing as an inability to perform manual or physical labor. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-71 (1994) (a lay person is competent to report symptoms based on personal observation when no special knowledge or training is required); Saunders, supra. As such, for the limited purpose of the analysis of the claims on appeal, the Board will assume the existence of a current right shoulder disorder.

Rather, at the May 2024 Board hearing, the appellant, for the first time, reported that, during his period of ACDUTRA from June 2010 to July 2010, he injured his right shoulder as a result of repetitively swinging a sledge hammer when conducting demolition at Pearl Harbor. In support thereof, he submitted July 2024 statements from his occupational therapy assistant and a licensed massage therapist wherein they opined that his right shoulder disorder is related to performing demolition duties during ACDUTRA. However, the Board finds that such individuals lack the requisite medical education, training, and experience necessary to address such a complex medical matter as such positions can be obtained without a four-year collegiate degree and does not require post-collegiate medical education and/or training. Thus, the Board affords such opinions no probative weight. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1).

Additionally, the appellant, as a lay person, lacks the requisite training and experience necessary to address the etiology of his right shoulder disorder as such is a complex medical matter concerning an internal physical process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. See Jandreau, supra; Woehlaert, supra.

Consequently, the Board finds that a right shoulder disorder is not shown to be causally or etiologically related to a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during period of ACDUTRA or an injury incurred or aggravated during a period of INACDUTRA, or caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. Thus, service connection for such claimed disorder must be denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disorder.

5. Entitlement to service connection for a right hip disorder, to include as secondary to a right ankle disorder.

As an initial matter, the Board notes that, while the record does not contain definitive diagnoses of right ankle and right hip disorders, he is competent, as a lay person, to report experiencing related functional impairments, which he described at the May 2024 hearing as an inability to perform manual or physical labor. See Layno, supra; Saunders, supra. As such, for the limited purpose of the analysis of the claims on appeal, the Board will assume the existence of current right ankle and right hip disorders.

However, at the time of the issuance of the October 2019 rating decision on appeal, the appellant had not advanced any theory of entitlement or otherwise indicated why he believed his claimed right ankle and right hip disorders were related to his military service. Additionally, while the appellant's service treatment records include his private treatment records documenting a pre-service right ankle disorder caused from repeated right ankle sprains, as well as his related corrective surgery performed in February 2003, his right ankle was assessed as normal at the time of his entrance to service in September 2009. Furthermore, his service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses referable to a right ankle or right hip disorder, and in fact reflect his February 2010 denial of any right ankle issues
of the issuance of the October 2019 rating decision on appeal, the appellant had not advanced any theory of entitlement or otherwise indicated why he believed his claimed right ankle and right hip disorders were related to his military service. Additionally, while the appellant's service treatment records include his private treatment records documenting a pre-service right ankle disorder caused from repeated right ankle sprains, as well as his related corrective surgery performed in February 2003, his right ankle was assessed as normal at the time of his entrance to service in September 2009. Furthermore, his service treatment records are negative for any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses referable to a right ankle or right hip disorder, and in fact reflect his February 2010 denial of any right ankle issues since his enlistment, and he did not identify any post-service treatment records.

Rather, at the May 2024 Board hearing, the appellant, for the first time, reported that, during his initial period of ACDUTRA, he reinjured a pre-existing right ankle disorder while performing physical training in combat boots, which, in turn, caused or aggravated a right hip disorder. In support thereof, he submitted a July 2024 statement from a fellow service members statement wherein she recounted the difficulty he had with his right ankle during such period of ACDUTRA. However, the appellant, as a lay person, lacks the requisite training and experience necessary to address the etiology of his right ankle and/or right hip disorder as such is a complex medical matter concerning an internal physical process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. See Jandreau, supra; Woehlaert, supra.

Furthermore, as the appellant did not advance the foregoing theory of entitlement until his May 2024 Board hearing, which is after the issuance of the October 2019 rating decision on appeal, such allegations cannot serve to support a pre-decisional duty to assist error in the AOJ's failure to obtain a VA examination and/or opinion in regard to such contentions. Moreover, the appellant is not service-connected for a right ankle disorder, and service connection for such claimed disorder is denied herein, service connection for a right hip disorder on a secondary basis may not be awarded as a matter of law.

Consequently, the Board finds that right ankle and right hip disorders are not shown to be causally or etiologically related to a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during period of ACDUTRA or an injury incurred or aggravated during a period of INACDUTRA, and a right hip disorder is not caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability. Thus, service connection for such claimed disorders must be denied.

A. JAEGER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board N. Northcutt

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