POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

MICHAEL MARTIN · 2026 · Case ID: A26031699

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from June 1975 to August 1975, appeals the denial of service connection for several conditions. The veteran sought service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability including PTSD with depression and anxiety, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (left and right hands), lower back injury/strain, cervical spine injury/strain, and bilateral sciatica radiculopathy secondary to the lower back injury. The Board denied all claims. Regarding the psychiatric disability, the Board found no current clinical diagnosis of PTSD, depression, or anxiety, noting that service treatment records were negative for any psychiatric complaints or treatment, and post-service records also showed negative screenings. The Board acknowledged the veteran's contentions of psychiatric issues stemming from in-service yelling and loud noises but found these insufficient without a clinical diagnosis. For the musculoskeletal claims, the Board found the evidence weighed against a service connection, as service treatment records were silent regarding complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of carpal tunnel, lower back strain, or cervical spine strain. Post-service records indicated a work-related injury for the back and neck, and treatment for the wrist occurred decades after service. The Board also denied the secondary claims for sciatica, as the veteran was not service-connected for the primary lower back condition. The Board concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of approximate balance of evidence, thus the benefit of the doubt was not applied.

Rationale

No current clinical diagnosis of psychiatric disability; Service treatment records negative for psychiatric complaints/treatment; Post-service records show negative screenings

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210616-166370

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26031699
Decision Date: 04/07/26 Archive Date: 04/07/26

DOCKET NO. 210616-166370
DATE: April 7, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability including PTSD with depression and anxiety is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel, left hand is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel, right hand (dominant) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for lower back injury, strain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine, injury strain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for sciatica radiculopathy, right lower extremity as secondary to lower back injury, strain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for sciatica radiculopathy, left lower extremity as secondary to lower back injury, strain is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a clinical diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disability including PTSD with depression and anxiety, at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that carpal tunnel, left hand began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that carpal tunnel, right hand began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that lower back injury, strain, right hand began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

5. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that cervical spine, injury strain began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

6. The Veteran's sciatica radiculopathy right lower extremity may not be service connected on a secondary basis, as the Veteran's back disability is not service connected.

7. The Veteran's sciatica radiculopathy left lower extremity may not be service connected on a secondary basis, as the Veteran's back disability is not service connected.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability including PTSD with depression and anxiety have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel, left hand have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel, right hand (dominant) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for lower back injury, strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for cervical spine, injury strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

6. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for sciatica radiculopathy, right lower extremity as secondary to lower back injury, strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for sciatica radiculopathy, left lower extremity as secondary to lower back injury, strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from June 1975 to August 1975.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of the May 2021 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the June 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On February
back injury, strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had active service from June 1975 to August 1975.

This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of the May 2021 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the June 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On February 24, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2021 RO decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the RO issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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.

Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with regard to the duty to notify or duty to assist as they pertain to the issues considered in this decision. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

The analysis in this decision focuses on the most relevant evidence and on what the evidence shows or does not show with respect to the issues denied in this decision. The Veteran should not assume that evidence that is not explicitly discussed in this decision has been overlooked. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (noting that the law requires only that reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant be addressed).

SERVICE CONNECTION

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection for PTSD requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f).

For cases certified to the Board on or after August 4, 2014, the diagnosis of PTSD must be in accordance with the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), otherwise DSM-IV is applicable. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); 79 Fed. Reg. 45,093, 45,094 (Aug. 4, 2014); 80 Fed. Reg. 14,308 (Mar. 19, 2015). This case was certified to the Board after August 4, 2014; therefore, DSM-5 is applicable.

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of
(f).

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of section 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992).

Service connection may be granted for a disability that is due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

The claimant bears the burden of presenting and supporting his claim for benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a); see also Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009). However, when there is an approximate balance of 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 claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability including PTSD with depression and anxiety

The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability including PTSD with depression and anxiety.

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disability and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

The Veteran's service treatment records do not reflect any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a psychiatric disability. The Veteran's post-service treatment records regularly reflect negative screenings for depression, and PTSD. The Veteran's treatment records do not reflect that the Veteran is seeking treatment for psychiatric disabilities and do not provide a clinical diagnosis of them.

The Board notes that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 1131 as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary). In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Board acknowledges that the Veteran contends that he has an acquired psychiatric disability because he was yelled at during service (2 months of service), and he was exposed to loud noises. However, the Veteran does not have a clinical diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disability including PTSD with depression and anxiety, and thus his claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability must be denied.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). If the evidence is not in approximate balance or nearly equal in the veteran's favor, the claim must be denied. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

In this case, the Board does not find that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, as the Veteran does not have a clinical diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disability.

2.
of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). If the evidence is not in approximate balance or nearly equal in the veteran's favor, the claim must be denied. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

In this case, the Board does not find that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, as the Veteran does not have a clinical diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disability.

2. Entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel, left hand

3. Entitlement to service connection for carpal tunnel, right hand (dominant)

4. Entitlement to service connection for lower back injury, strain

5. Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine, injury strain

6. Entitlement to service connection for sciatica radiculopathy, right lower extremity as secondary to lower back injury, strain

7. Entitlement to service connection for sciatica radiculopathy, left lower extremity as secondary to lower back injury, strain

The Veteran contends that he has bilateral carpal tunnel; lower back injury strain; and cervical spine injury strain that are related to his active military service. He also contends that he has bilateral sciatica radiculopathy secondary to his lower back injury strain. The Veteran has not presented any particular argument as to why such compensation is warranted and has not identified any particular in-service occurrence.

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel; lower back injury strain; and cervical spine injury strain disabilities, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that they began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

The Veteran's service treatment records reflect no complaints, treatment or diagnoses of bilateral carpal tunnel; lower back injury strain; and cervical spine injury strain disabilities. The Veteran's post-service treatment records reflect that the Veteran injured his neck and back due to a work-related injury, he recently lost his insurance and needs continued care. See July 2014 primary care note. The Veteran received treatment for his wrist in approximately 2019, decades after separating from service.

Consideration has also been given to the Veteran's personal assertion (by filing the claim) that he has bilateral carpal tunnel; lower back injury strain; and cervical spine injury strain disabilities related to active service. However, while lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011), the specific issues raised in this case falls outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The disabilities at issue are not conditions that is readily amenable to lay diagnosis or probative comment regarding etiology. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

The Board finds that the Veteran's claims for entitlement to service connection for bilateral carpal tunnel; lower back injury strain; and cervical spine injury strain must be denied. The Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of these conditions. The Veteran's post-service treatment records reflect that the Veteran sustained injuries to his neck and back due to a work-related injury. Finally, the Veteran has not provided any corroborating evidence that demonstrates that he was injured during his active military service, that resulted in his bilateral carpal tunnel; lower back injury strain; and cervical spine injury strain disabilities. Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran's claim for entitlement for service connection for these disabilities must be denied.

The Board also finds that the Veteran's claim for entitlement for bilateral sciatica radiculopathy, secondary to lower back injury, strain must be denied. As noted, the Veteran is not service connected for his lower back disability, and thus while the Veteran's bilateral sciatica radiculopathy may be related to the Veteran's back disability, he cannot receive service connection on a secondary basis because he is not service connected for his back disability.

In this case, the Board does not find that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, as evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's bilateral carpal tunnel; lower back injury strain; and cervical spine injury strain disabilities began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. The Veteran is not service connected for his back disability; thus he cannot be service connected for bilateral sciatica radiculopathy on a secondary basis.

MICHAEL MARTIN

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board M. Quist, 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