MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

S. HENEKS · 2026 · Case ID: A26033917

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from April 1972 to April 1975, appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and erectile dysfunction, claimed as secondary to the psychiatric disorder. The veteran asserted that depression began during service due to verbal abuse and witnessing a fellow soldier's death, leading to drug use. Service treatment records from enlistment and separation showed normal psychiatric evaluations, and a National Guard enlistment in the 1990s also showed a normal psychiatric evaluation. A June 2022 VA examination diagnosed depressive disorder, unspecified, with the examiner opining it was less likely than not related to service, citing silent service treatment records and the veteran's denial of mental health symptoms in 1995. An addendum opinion in July 2022 reiterated this, noting a lack of post-service medical records and attributing current issues to post-service decisions. A January 2025 VA examination also found the disorder less likely than not related to service, noting no in-service treatment and current complaints related to life stressors. The Board found these opinions persuasive due to their reasoning and the lack of contrary evidence, also noting the lengthy period without psychiatric complaints post-service. The Board found the veteran's lay opinion on nexus incompetent, as understanding the link between current psychiatric disorder and service, without in-service issues, requires specialized knowledge. The Board concluded the evidence weighed against service connection, rendering the benefit of the doubt doctrine inapplicable. As service connection for the psychiatric disorder was denied, the claim for erectile dysfunction as secondary to it was also denied.

Rationale

VA examiners opined the condition was less likely than not related to service.; Service treatment records were silent for mental health symptoms.; Veteran denied mental health symptoms in 1995 National Guard exam.; Lack of post-service medical records for years after separation.; Veteran's lay opinion on nexus was deemed incompetent.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

251017-601085

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26033917
Decision Date: 04/13/26 Archive Date: 04/13/26

DOCKET NO. 251017-601085
DATE: April 13, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction, claimed as secondary to acquired psychiatric disorder, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder did not manifest in service or for many years thereafter, and the evidence does not show that his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to or may be associated with service.

2. The Veteran's erectile dysfunction is neither caused nor aggravated by a service-connected disability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1972 to April 1975.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an October 2024 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied service connection for ED. This case also comes before the Board from a January 2025 rating decision which confirmed and continued the previous denial of service connection for chronic acquired psychiatric disorder.

In an October 2025 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (notice of disagreement (NOD)) (VA Form 10182), the Veteran timely appealed the October 2024 and January 2025 rating decisions and elected the Evidence Submission docket.

By way of history, in a July 2024 rating decision, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) denied service connection for depressive disorder, unspecified, and in a July 2024 Request for Higher-Level Review (VA Form 20-0996), the Veteran timely requested Higher-Level Review. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2601. In July 2024 the AOJ issued a rating decision indicating a duty to assist error had been made for failing to complete all necessary development.

As a duty to assist error was identified resulting in additional development, and as the Veteran has requested the Evidence Submission Docket, the Board may consider only the evidence of record at the time of the October 2024 and January 2025 decisions on the issues on appeal and evidence submitted with the NOD and within 90 days following receipt of the NOD. The Board will not consider evidence added to the record in between the date of the AOJ decisions on appeal and the date of the NOD or after 90 days following the date of the NOD. If evidence was added during this ineligible period, the Board did not consider it.

If the Veteran wishes to have VA consider any evidence that was not considered, he may at any time file a supplemental claim with the AOJ after receiving this decision and the additional evidence will be considered in connection with the supplemental claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C(a)(1)(B), (b); 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2501, 20.1105(a). If filed within one year, this supplemental claim will preserve the date of the claim denied herein as the effective date of the grant of the benefit or benefits sought. 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a)(2)(B); 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h)(1).

Service Connection

Service connection will also be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service incurrence of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3
.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service incurrence of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service 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)

1. Acquired psychiatric disorder

The Veteran asserts that he has depression that began during his service. In a May 2022 Statement in Support of Claim (VA Form 21-4138) the Veteran stated while on active duty he was verbally abused and witnessed a fellow soldier dying. He started using drugs while stationed in the Philippines to deal with the stress of his service. Following service, he reported that he was in and out of drug rehabilitation programs between 1975 and 1999.

The Veteran's service treatment records show a July 1971 enlistment report of medical history wherein the Veteran reported "yes" to nervous trouble of any sort. The accompanying report of medical examination noted he was normal on psychiatric evaluation. His March 1975 separation report of medical examination reflected that the Veteran was normal on psychiatric evaluation.

Following his active duty service, he served in the National Guard in the 1990s. A February 1995 National Guard enlistment report of medical examination reflected the Veteran was normal on psychiatric evaluation.

The Veteran underwent a VA mental health examination in June 2022. The Veteran was diagnosed with depressive disorder, unspecified. The June 2022 VA psychologist opined the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. She explained his STRs are silent for treatment of mental health symptoms. Also, she explained as recently as 1995 he denied mental health symptoms when being examined for the National Guard.

An addendum opinion was obtained in July 2022. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was related to his service. The examiner noted that there is a lack of medical records for years during and after the service to support his claim. The examiner stated that any current feelings, symptoms or diagnosis are as a result of time after his service and decisions made by himself unrelated to his service.

A January 2025 VA psychologist opined the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. It was noted that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for PTSD. The VA psychologist explained he was not treated for mental health issues while on active duty. Also, he explained the Veteran was recently treated for mental health issues and complained of current life stressors rather than his military service.

As the June 2022 and January 2025 VA psychologists explained the reasons for their conclusions based on an accurate characterization of the evidence of record, their opinions are entitled to substantial probative weight. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (most of the probative value of a medical opinion comes from its reasoning). Moreover, there is no contrary opinion of record. In addition, the absence of any clinical evidence of psychiatric treatment for years after the Veteran's separation from active duty is one factor weighing against a finding that his current disability was present in service or in the year or years immediately after service. See Maxson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 453, 459 (1999), aff'd sub nom. Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) (the Board may consider in its assessment of a service connection claim the passage of a lengthy period of time wherein the veteran has not complained of the malady at issue).

The Veteran's statements may be competent on a variety of matters concerning the nature and cause of disability. However, the dispositive question presented in this case (i.e., whether any relationship exists between the Veteran's current psychiatric disorder and his active duty service) is a question as to internal medical processes which extend beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship that is of the type that the courts have found to be beyond the competence of lay witnesses. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 at 1377, n. 4 ("sometimes the layperson will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer"). An opinion as to whether there is a link between the Veteran's current acquired psychiatric disorder and service, where there is no evidence of any psychiatric problems for many years after service, is one requiring specialized knowledge and testing to understand the complex nature of the body systems. The Veteran has not indicated that he has such experience and his opinion on the question of nexus is therefore not competent.

For the above reasons, the evidence is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so with regard to whether entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder is warranted. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against an association between his acquired psychiatric disorder and his active duty service. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is therefore not for application as to this claim. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application).

2. Erectile dysfunction

Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a),(b).

On the July 2024 Fully Developed Claim (VA Form 21-526EZ) the Veteran claimed service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to his acquired psychiatric disorder. Because the Board herein denies service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder, there is no legal basis for granting service connection for erectile dysfunction. As service connection for the primary disability has been denied, the Veteran cannot establish entitlement to service connection for a secondary condition. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Thus, the matter of service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to acquired psychiatric disorder is without legal merit. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994).

S. HENEKS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Miller, 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